Slashdot Mirror
A Marine's-Eye View of the Networked Battlefield
Ian Lamont writes "Tyler Boudreau, a Marine veteran of the war in Iraq and a blogger, has written an interesting analysis of the impact of email, IM, and other digital devices upon 'ground-pounders' and their commanders in the field. These innovations were introduced in hopes of increasing situational awareness, rapidly gathering data, analyzing it, organizing it, and then pushing it back out to operators as actionable intelligence. They also provide commanders with the freshest possible information and aid them in their moment-to-moment decision-making. However, Boudreau found that the technologies can lead to micromanagement and deep frustration, trends that he illustrates by describing a shooting incident in al Anbar and its aftermath. He also warns that soldiers can become too dependent upon headquarters for critical decisions, which can lead to dangerous situations when communications get cut off."
If higher echelons are indeed taking a deeper role in their subordinates actions then it makes the old "bad apples" denial far less credible, and that is saying something. A government can't claim "we didn't know about this" if they've spent billions developing a system that lets them know everything thats going on everywhere.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
First, it's Marines, not soldiers (I was one of the former). Second, it's obvious you are talking out your ass.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
Actually, having soldiers that only obey are considered bad soldiers. Look at the autonomy that commando's have.
Aren't they all just a bunch of myrmidons anyway? Just like cops, when the next Hitler comes along they'll gladly give him the might that he needs, so long as they're told it's their "duty" and that to do otherwise would be "unpatriotic".
I've always been a little wary of this whole "networked future force warrior" thing. I think it smacks more of hollywood sci-fi than real warfare, sometimes. I can definitely see the advantages of getting more information to your troops, but turning them into walking blackberries may not be the best way to do it in combat. There are some parts of soldiering that just aren't going to change no matter how much technology you throw at it, and the need for your troops on the ground to make quick, independent decisions is a good example. You don't want them constantly emailing/texting/radioing back and forth during a firefight for instructions. That's what unit leadership is for. Too much of this stuff is more bad cyberpunk novel than George Patton.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Read the TFA. The author uses "soldier" to describe the impacts of these technologies on the battlefield. Clearly, they are not limited to the Marines.
People actually use the word 'actionable'?
If I'm running the GPS in my car, I find myself waiting for it to tell me where to go even if I have a good idea of the directions.
I feel like it cripples my sense of direction when I rely on it too much. I'm sure these combat systems could do the same thing
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
I was up until very recently a soldier myself. I know all too well of this micromanagement that Tyler Boudreau speaks of. Micromanaged to death I was!
This sounds very familiar. I joined Army ROTC in '73, when all instructors had at least one tour in Vietnam. I served in the 82nd Airborne in the late '70s, when every senior NCOs, many captains, and all field grades had been to Vietnam. Micromanagement was was a common complaint, both from them and in the reading I've done then and since. But while the Infantry School would lecture against micromanagement, I can't say that I saw many of my seniors taking a hands off approach.
"Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
On a ship at sea, the captain was God for two reasons. First and foremost, the ship is beyond all the normal structures and civilization. If a majority of the crew decided to ignore the captain, mutiny would be uncontainable. Punishments were so harsh that individual crewmen would be in terror of bringing it upon their heads and the thought of getting enough together that punishment could be defied, victory attained, would seem impossible. And captains absolutely required such authority to be supported once they returned to civilization so the Boards of Admiralty of the various navies would seldom ever overrule or censure them.
What's also fascinating is that the captains also had great latitude in exercising their orders generally. The last history I read was specifically concerning the British military and the American Revolution. There was a common sentiment of not wanting to second-guess the man in the field thousands of miles away. Now either this is true wisdom or looking for a scapegoat, I'm not entirely sure of which and possibly they weren't either. In hindsight, there's also a bit of making a virtue out of necessity because the tools for micro-management from such a distance had not yet been invented and twats like MacNamara had not yet been born.
There's a maxim that goes along the lines of "If a person is granted responsibility of accomplishing a great task, by extension he is granted the authority required to make that task happen." When a leader finds himself in such a situation of responsibility with no authority, he should tell his superiors to kindly go fuck themselves and continue to do so until they've worked their heads out of their own asses.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I have an idea, lets put nano machines in all of our soldiers so we can control them even further and make them even better! Squads can work more as a team because they see the same things and if one is hurt that all feel it to lessen the pain. Also, lets repress the acts of violence they commit with these nano machines. Just don't turn them off. I hear war weighs heavily on soldiers hearts.
NO WAY!
My experience with StarCraft, a 'real-time strategy' simulator, taught me that micromanagement was the KEY to winning!!
I wonder about the ability of a soldier to effectively multi-task. Not only is he in charge of his safety and that of his buddies, but also facing an enemy trying to kill him, and then having to lug around all this electronic stuff occasionally providing manual input into it. I have a tough enough time handling email/cell phone/my job daily I cannot imagine how difficult it is for the modern warrior.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
I was CJTF-82's Knowledge Management NCOIC for OEF 8.
Many of the issues this Marine talks about are things our shop was aware of, realized, and planned for. Processes in our operations were changed to maximize situational awareness, and not so much micro-mangament.
It was a fun job.
Would this not be the reverse of the mechanism that improves the hearing of blind people? By taking away the reason to think in a certain manner, wounldn't those pathways in the brain atrophy? I would think this shouldn't be a suprise.
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
> The only way to get someone to do something that will likely get them killed is to get them to stop
> thinking about the ramifications of their actions.
What's more, most human beings need similar 'programming' - or extreme circumstances - to deliberately kill. There are plenty of stories of soldiers who, even in the heat of battle, would deliberately shoot to MISS the enemy.
Wrong - Soldiers are trained to execute orders obediently and immediately, even if the results are unpleasant. Yes, you have to train out a number of humanist instincts and reactions, but a non-thinking soldier might as well be a robotic drone.
More now than ever your average grunt HAS to think - as in the article - rules of engagement, higher tech weapons, very tense and vague situations involving civilians and higher political repercussions. If you don't have a thinking soldier you are likely going to end up with a disaster on your hands.
The idea of the robotic-kill-on-command soldier is a bygone era and mostly the stuff of anti-war diatribes.
Do you suppose the "frist psot"-ing troll I replied to actually read TFA?
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
Trained not to think? That is ridiculous.
Soldiers are trained to follow orders. In no way does following orders entail the lack of thought.
> There are plenty of stories of soldiers who, even in the heat of battle, would deliberately shoot to MISS the enemy.
They probably hope the enemy will return the favor.
This was well covered in BLINK: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, which talked about a war game in which the military kept changing the rules of the game b/c their total informational awareness system which they were trying to showcase kept getting beat due to information overloaded commanders.
You haven't RTFA'd, then; it explicitly discusses how the armed forces are in increasing need of men who think and take initiative on their own, and has adjusted its training towards that end.
This claim that people need to "turn off their critical thinking skills" to be willing to risk their lives for a cause they genuinely believe in makes a mockery of genuine heroes and martyrs everywhere, military or otherwise. You should be ashamed.
All of them? No. Too many? Yes.
Nothing has changed since Thoreau wrote, "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
E-mail? Text messages? Anyone running a raid knows that everyone has to install ventrilo.
Better communications has the wonderful potential of empowering better command and control. It also has the awful potential of magnifying command mistakes. Let's hope that the interfering general's own commanding general had the opportunity to review the log of the interfering general's micromanagement--and then chewed that general's *** inside out. That's a pretty unrealistic hope, though . . . Occupation of a conquered country is usually a job for second-line troops. I suspect that using American first-line troops as an occupation force simply wastes them and blunts their effectiveness. What do we get out of Iraq? We're not plundering and Iraq is not necessary to our self-defense. Why are we there? Is it simply about giving jobs to Halliburton? Why are we wasting such extremely expensive high-tech troops and weapons? The only stable peace that will keep Iraq from tearing itself apart is a peace that is based on inexpensive relatively low-tech tools that the Iraquis can use to police themselves.
You know, so they won't have to kill a human being for a cause they don't agree with.
Someday they'll have robot soldiers...but not today.
Blar.
Seriously, with all the recent articles regarding the detrimental effects multitasking has on a person, this sounds like it could do more harm than good. Imagine being in a fire fight and an IM window pops up on your HUD. That would really anger me.
Situational awareness is certainly a good thing, but there have to be limits, otherwise one's overall awareness will decrease due to input overload. A good example is using Google maps on one's N95 or iPhone while driving. Sure, it increases situational awareness vis-a-vis one's current location, but at the cost of smashing into the car ahead or running over a pedestrian because you didn't notice that the light had turned red.
Wrong. I've been to Basic Combat Training, spend 4 years as enlisted man in combat units and then 12 years as an officer including being a training officer and temporary commander of a Basic Training unit. We don't weed out critical thinking. We harden people up, teach them to follow orders, and to fill in the gaps and get over the caveats.
What we teach them about following orders is, there are times for questions and there are times when you have to just do it; be intelligent about figuring out which one is which.
/LabMonkey09
Kinda reminds me of the "Colonial Marines" in the movie Aliens. The lieutenant stayed in the vehicle with live audio/video feeds in front of him and directed the individual marines in the actual op. Makes you wonder what they needed a sargeant for.
> Yes, you have to train out a number of humanist instincts and reactions, but a non-thinking soldier might
> as well be a robotic drone.
Ummm... if robotic drone soldiers aren't what the military wants, why are there at least two /. stories every week about the latest multi-billion dollar military research in robotic drone soldier technology?
wouldn't it be underwater?
Get it? Marine? Underwater?
Alright. I'm going away.
Not thinking "for themselves" and not "thinking" are two entirely different concepts and don't necessarily correlate to each other.
A soldier or marine be able to comprehend and think about the objective in ways far more detailed then we as average citizens would normally do. I would say that even the cops have to think less more often then the military does. It's become the norm here that when someone has a gun a cop can shoot them. This isn't the case in the military and you have to discern threat as well as control the situation.
When an order is passed down, it doesn't get scripted from the higher ups. If someone makes a call to take that hill or whatever, there are a number of possible scenarios on how to do that which each have to be selected and modified pretty much on the fly by the soldier in the field. The old days of lining both sides up and squaring off like a perverted game of chess are long gone. Now the emphasis is on keeping your side alive while defeating the other side. This means that soldiers are limited in their response because failure or not hitting their objectives could be devastating to others depending on it for their objectives. A high degree of quick and accurate thinking is essential to this end.
How many of these proposed drones have no direct human input?
You mad
Information = good; Micromanagement = bad. We should not confuse the two. Networked combat units are here to stay and only getting more information centric. Speed and accuracy is most everything in combat. Computers are good for both. We should keep the data, and throw away bad leaders. BTW: a good book on army transformation, information warefare, with some conversation about future leaders is "Transformation Under Fire". Hardcover: 320 pages Publisher: Praeger Publishers (September 30, 2003) Language: English ISBN-10: 0275981924 ISBN-13: 978-0275981921 Product Dimensions: 9.7 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies) Average Customer Review: 8 Reviews 5 star: (7) 4 star: (1) 3 star: (0) 2 star: (0) 1 star: (0)
/LabMonkey09
Apone: All right, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we gonna conquer, and we gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?
Marines: Yea!
Apone: Are ya mean?
Marines: Yea!
Apone: WHAT ARE YOU?
Marines: Lean and mean!
Apone: WHAT ARE YOU? HUDSON! Get on the ready line, Marines, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badassess! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
Wow.. DO you have a severe misunderstanding of things.
First, the order to do X aren't spelled out to them. They have a limited number of scenarios and resources at their disposal and when command says take and secure that hill, or weed out resistance in this town, the soldier have to assess the situation, develop a plan of action, implement it, correct for when something goes wrong, and hopefully not killing innocents or themselves. A drone couldn't do this because no two situations are identical.
You must be thinking of the old colonial wars where the troops lined up and squared off until one side decided they had enough. This is not the situation any more and hasn't been for quite a while.
You obviously have no military background, are ignorant or have a bias/grudge. You can go to jail for "not thinking" at the lesser end, or die at the greater. Are grunts trained to just follow orders? Sure. But on the same hand their taught to use their skills and insight to execute those orders, and if the orders are illegal, to not follow them. It's not uncommon to be told "X needs to be done" and then when you ask, "How?", the answer is, "You figure it out".
Next time, please don't spout ignorant crap like this about my bretheren in uniform. On the off chance you were military, what was the type of discharge, branch of service and your MOS/AFSCN/specialty code?I'm saddened the ignorant remarks got modded "insightful" since that is the antithesis of how it should be classified.
I was in the military, and I got out with a good conduct discharge after my 6 year enlistment because I did not support our operations in Iraq, and was not willing to participate in them.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
A significant part of what made the Prussian and later German military so ingenious was its use of command and co-ordination (supply lines, communication, etc). People sometimes make the mistake that technology wins wars, but of course, this is a mixed bag, and a favorite slashdot saying is pertinent: correlation does not equal causation. Generally, partly due to the ignominious military industrial complex, the US military seems to have developed a myopic obsession for technology. This pursuit correlates to classical tragedy and comedy: some actions are absurd, others have been or will be quite tragic. Technology without execution is tragic, and I feel fairly confident the execution is lacking for a simple reason. From a 10,000 foot view, knowing none of the operational details, the enormously increasing reliance by the US military on technology as a *means to action* seems to have usurped traditional checks and balances, and become a glaring achilles heel.
...by this?
From TFA: The prototypical "enemy" of the twenty-first century is an urban guerilla who is mobile, adaptive, and draws his strength and resources primarily from the indigenous population. (emphasis mine)
If the prototypical enemy of the US these days is backed by the indigenous population, then the US is not "liberating" anyone.
An old joke from my Navy days might help illustrate what you're talking about:
One day, a CAPT was walking across a parade ground, when he noticed that a flag had wrapped itself around a flagpole. Spotting a nearby LCDR, he called out, "Commander! Get that flag fixed!"
"Aye, aye, sir!" replied the LCDR. Looking at hte flag, he couldn't figure out to accomplish the task. Spotting a nearby ENS, he called out, "Ensign! Get that flag fixed!"
"Aye, aye, sir!" replied the ENS. Likewise, when he looked at the pole he could no way to safely climb up and fix the flag. Spotting a nearby Chief, he called out "Chief, I need your help getting that flag fixed."
The salty Chief looked up at the flag, saw the problem, and told a nearby Seaman to get a ladder, climb up and fix the flag.
Later, the original CAPT saw the flag flying proudly once again. When he ran into the LCDR in the officer's club that night, he said "Thanks for getting that flag problem fixed, Commander. I knew I could count on you."
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
"and if the orders are illegal, to not follow them"
I'm not sure whether to make a poignant remark about the impossibility of jarheads weighing up the legality of complex scenarios in realtime, or to make a joke about sending all our lawyers to the front line.
I hate printers.
> Wow.. DO you have a severe misunderstanding of things.
> First, the order to do X aren't spelled out to them. They have a limited number of scenarios and resources
> at their disposal and when command says take and secure that hill, or weed out resistance in this town,
> the soldier have to assess the situation, develop a plan of action, implement it, correct for when
> something goes wrong, and hopefully not killing innocents or themselves. A drone couldn't do this because
> no two situations are identical.
I think you are misunderstanding. Yes, the soldier is required to think to turn objectives into plans. However he is taught never to question orders, never to think things like "should I really be throwing a grenade into this house?" and certainly never anything along the lines of "is my patriotism being exploited so that my political masters can whore me out and convert my blood into money for corporate interests?"
All that kind of thinking is overridden by "SIR YES SIR!" and "America, fuck yeah!" and "let's go kill us some ragheads"
You see the difference?
The level of communications is set to jump even more as networking waveforms are developed and comm systems link up even more. If you look at the CONOPS for some future capabilities, the guy on the original foot patrol could have sent video of the entire firefight to the other patrol, or to an Apache/A-10 overhead and then back to the Battallion. Texting is already in place, but if you listen to any Marine or Army officer talk, voice will always rule supreme. Yeah, you'll have streaming video, IM, texting, etc. But the platoon leader wants to hear voice, and more importantly, the inflection in his voice. I'm sure this article's author backed his man because he heard the sincerity and urgency in his men's voice while on patrol.
Google JTRS if you want to see where the Marines and Army are headed with comm. These will be small form factor, maritime, manpacks, handhelds, etc. Micromanagement and bad leadership will always happen, regardless, but I think good situational awareness and NCOs it will even out.To all the posters saying, "Soldiers don't think". Please STFU. You're just being dumb and either anti-military, biased, or just spouting crap you heard on CNN. I taught new recruits in the Air Force as a special duty assignment at Vandenberg. I have friends who are Marines that leave and go to Iraq more than you go to the dentist. If there's any common thread between all the branches it's this: accountability is much higher, better skills required , and critical thinking never been more demanded. You can point to Abu, but you're ignorant of the thousands of patrols who held back their trigger finger to allow a bad guy get away because of the civilians behind him. The hundreds of additional hours spent planning ATOs (Air Tasking Orders) so that __IF__ a bomb missed it would not hit innocents and that the proper munition is used for the target, building, support, etc. If you're still not convinced, spend at least an hour reading the foot patrols blogged here and then click "Next". Spend some time poking through his dispatchs.
Plato or Aristotle, I forget which, described the paradox of the perfect soldier. An ideal soldier obeys his orders instantly and without question, but at the same time needs the ability to make good decisions in the absence of orders. How can a man be a mindless robot and at the same time think independently.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Who ever modded you down has no idea what you just said. My experience under fire has been to trust my training, obey my orders; And if the CO has a problem with our advancement; We are more than willing to follow that CO into battle at any time.
I see lots of IMing with HQ but not much talking to the local people. That's why the war is being lost.
Do you want us to suppose you actually read TFA before jumping up to "correct" him?
Let me guess: Private-for-life, in charge of pop-and-chips procurement?
I'm sure inflicting that many lawyers at once on the enemy would violate a Geneva convention or something...
labmonkey09 is dead on. Turn off your TV and stop parroting everything it tells you about the "real world".
One thing labmonkey09 forgot to mention is that critical thinking skills are in fact taught during basic.
Love,
A veteran
First of all, how many of these drones are autonomous? Second, of the drones that are autonomous, how many are designed to return fire when fired upon?
Despite the military's interest in drone technology, they're still very wary about giving non-human piloted craft the ability to launch attacks. For a good example, look at the new Hellfire armed Predator drones. You'll note that it was the CIA that piloted the concept, not the military.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
I wonder what he thinks of the war economy, proxy battles, nanomachines and the la-le-lu-li-lo. I NEED SCISSORS, 61.
A better question is, have YOU ever been hit by a roadside bomb? What's that? No? Oh, then why don't you just STFU already?
The book The Ultra Secret addressed this. Berlin's micro-management was enabled by Radio & the Enigma machine.
Wehrmacht were hen-pecked, details demanded, encrypted, transmitted. Allan Turing helped decrypt. Allies found it helpful.
Except that it was the military who armed the Hunters long before the CIA armed any Predators.
Not that I disagree with your point, the military needs both thinking and unthinking combat "equipment" but trying to deny they have any responsibility for weaponizing "autonomous" combat vehicles is slightly inaccurate.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Let me guess: Private-for-life, in charge of pop-and-chips procurement?
Retired Warrior God."It takes an act of Congress to make you a Gentleman." - Unknown
One of the things that used to distinguish American troops from those of other country's armed forces was the level of decision making that was allowed at the lower ranks. I think the phrase I heard was something like "an American sargeant makes the same kind of decisions that normally requires a colonel in the [fill in country name here] army". The idea being that that sort of delegation (and trust) made for a much flexible and responsive force than the more hierarchical, all-decisions-flow-from-the-top armies they typically faced.
Perhaps this is how the commanders are dealing with the lowering of educational standards of the recruits.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Am I the only one who is wary of jumping to conclusions based on the assessment, and anecdotal evidence of a single soldier?
I supported a software development lab at one point, and we tightened controls at one point to help the build process. The developers got frustrated, and it stressed them out, but the fact was that after months of failures, nightly builds began to be successful.
In the same way, I know that I have often complained about changes made by management that make my job more frustrating. In the midst of it you feel like you know better than them since you're "in the trenches" but if we're honest, there's a reason I'm the IT guy, and not the CEO.
All I'm saying is that while the article is interesting, I would take his conclusions with a grain of salt. Its very possible that the new technology has made overall operations more effective even though it doesn't seem that way to those on the ground.
Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
Sorry, but that's complete horse sh!t. When a Captain, LT, or SGT gets orders to secure a road or patrol an area for weapons caches - the orders do not tell them HOW to do it. It might say, these are your deadlines, here are your resources, here are rules of engagement, but the officer needs to manage and think through the actual mission planning and execution; and much of their training relates to how they should think through this process.
Why don't you kiss my ass?
I don't want people from some foreign land driving around the U.S. in tanks and armored cars blowing shit up and killing me if I happen to be near them when they get what they deserve.
And they would get what they deserve from me.
Some soldiers != all soldiers.
We generally only hear about the bad eggs, and never really about the normal guy/gal in the service (or police). Most of my high school friends ended up in the Army or Navy, and none of them are really as you describe. The ones who went to Iraq/Afghanistan were DEEPLY effected by the experience, in negative ways. I actually have never met anyone who was happily following orders in those places, there is a deep conflict.
Even the people I know who joined for gung-ho post 9/11 patriotism are hurt by Iraq. The patriotism wears off rather fast in circumstances.
As for police... I have met some bad ones, but generally they are just working stiffs like the rest of us. I also know my fair share of ex-police, and they are among some of the nicest people I know. And most of my experiences with police have been positive, IF I'm not actually doing something wrong. A lot of police will give leniency (i.e. a warning) when they are enforcing a law they don't agree with, or you are just "technically" disobeying the law. They are, like the rest of us, just people.
Most cops are fine, as long as you are not an ass to them.
Every profession has assholes, you can't just stereotype everyone to whatever mold you want. Well you CAN, but then don't complain when your treated like an ass.
That said, I have met a couple gung-ho soldiers who would fall into the evil category, oddly most of them were Marines. This doesn't imply, though, that ALL of them are assholes.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
A "good conduct discharge"? Since there is no such thing, you have just proven yourself a liar. Pick from the following:
Honorable
General
Dishonorable
Bad conduct
Medical
Yet they are admitting more and more recruits w/"questionable" backgrounds... crminal backgrounds, gang affiliations.
Are you kidding? Most of the weapons advancements in the last 20 years have related to remote/unmanned control. Look also at the air theatre - unmanned drones have become a very prominent component of surveillance and weapons delivery. This IS the future. Robots are only expensive as prototypes - once scaled up, they become very cost effective. Another way to look at it - robots don't need benefits, VA support, etc. Again, more cost effective.
A Marine is a soldier. He's not Army, but he's a soldier nonetheless.
That's all well and good as far as it goes, but in the case of Iraq, the orders to invade were probably legal, or at least ambiguous enough that ordinary soldiers were correct to obey them. You really don't want to turn every E-3 into an amateur international lawyer - the military would fall apart. Orders given by superior officer should be presumed to be lawful unless you have a compelling reason to believe that they are not. Some of the stuff that went on at Abu Ghraib, for example, should have been stopped on this basis.
And just so this is clear, while I believe that it was likely legal (in a narrow sense) to invade Iraq, I don't believe at all that it was the right thing to do. It was probably the biggest blunder of the century.
Your agency needs a better source for its quotes. Patton's famous quote is from his book, _War as I Knew It_, and is as follows:
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
This joke is a metaphor for a lot of stuff that goes on in the Navy, but I'm not sure what's funny about it. The LCDR DID get the flag problem fixed. He looked at the problem, assigned the right people to it, and the job got done. Of course, when offered praise from the CAPT, he should have been sure to point out that the seaman did the actual fixing and deserved credit for it. The beauty of the situation is that there's no limited supply of praise - the entire chain of command can and should get credit for successful mission accomplishment.
LCDR's make kind of a lot of money to be spending their time climbing ladders and fixing flags themselves. Tasks should be delegated to the lowest level at which they can be accomplished - if a seaman can accomplish a task, he/she should be assigned to it.
wondered what this had to do with fish?
Sure. More than when the military was being down-sized and recruitment was being narrowed to fill the gap with the best from the available field of applicants.
There are many reformed miscreants in the military that turned out to be damn fine NC0s, SNCOs, and possibly O's.
It's part of having a citizen military. Your implication is specious and infantile.
It might be helpful for Mr. Boudreau to spend less time 'analyzing' and more time learning the history of the field he is pontificating about - because frankly he really doesn't know what he is talking about. The only difference between his experience in Iraq and past times is that the communications in question (especially between himself and higher echelons) took place via email.
Particularly galling is his statement "Commanders can no longer grab their men by the collars of their flak jackets and direct them toward an objective, because in most cases their men are out of reach and the objective is not a point on the map". Well Mr. Boudreau that hasn't been true since roughly 10000BC when battle got larger than a couple of dozen proto humans scuffling in the mud. It's the whole reason why things like flags and trumpet calls were invented.
Why I can see were you would think what you presented, after all, the movies and accounts of wars and battles tend to lean to your direction when told after the fact. But the reality of it is that the average soldier makes more decisions that could mean life and death throughout the course of a battle and even when risking his life doing duty in hostile areas while waiting on a battle then some CEO's and managers will make all day long. It is imperative for them to do so when we are attempting to fight clean wars in politically correct ways.
Please don't confuse discipline and enthusiasm with not thinking. I know on the surface, that is makes sense. But the truth of the matter is that a uniformed soldier is a several hundred thousand dollar asses entrusted with the same amount or more asset during the course of their endeavor. I say that not to put a price on their lives but to estimate the cost of training a replacement to a level comparable to an experienced combatant. The sir, Yes sir, is more of a leadership thing then a loss of will to think. The America Fuck Yea and lets get some is a motivational ploy to psych them up when getting ready for what could be the end of their natural lives. It isn't a sign of brainwashed ignorance but a sign of willing participation.I know people in Iraq right now. They are there because they think there are some things deeper and more important then themselves. To each of them, this is a little different but the common theme is that they are proud to do the work of bringing democracy and hopefully peace and opportunity to a people who have not had that luxury in a long time. They are doing it themselves because they don't want to have people forced into doing it for us. I don't want to sound like a recruitment officer or some poster boy for the war, but at least two of these people I know made that decision after Iraq started and they still believe it today. I tried to talk one of them out of joining and he insisted that if he didn't go, someone else would and he needed to do his part for his country. Granted I've always been a flag waving fan of the US but this clearly shows that they can think for themselves and after they return and talk about their experiences, the close calls, the decisions that saved their lives, someone else's decision that save their lives, and even how they use cheap toys to detect tripwires for IEDs and such, there is no doubt in their ability to think without someone barking orders to them.
We had commanding officers sitting back in the States looking at overhead imagery, dishing out orders to the troops and that cost us dearly.
The military spent years trying to get away from that mentality and the Age of Information threatens to raise the head of that specter again.
Keep in mind that the White House drove most of the air strikes and movements over the phone after looking at hours- or days-old photos. The time differences, and local conditions got a lot of good people killed. This new speed that information flows is not really going to help matters any, for there is more information to digest and once agian, minute to minute changes at the local theater is not going to help any either.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
I'll kiss your ass as soon as you stop talking about shit you have no idea about. Nowhere in any doctrine/manual/classroom/training exercise does it state the best reaction to an IED ambush is to start shooting blindly at non-combatants. So, yeah, STFU already.
Agreed. The objective becomes more specific as it descends through the chain of command, with each level of command (including the individual soldier) being required to determine the details of how to accomplish his specific objective.
Also, every soldier at any rank should be prepared to assume a command position due to attrition, which means that he needs to be capable of critical thinking, planning, etc. My step father was a squad leader in Vietnam who became an acting platoon commander due to the heavy losses in his unit.
Oh, so you ran the PX then. Gotcha.
Seriously, if you think a soldiers job is to obey unquestioningly, your career with the military must not have been a very successful one. As a section commander I went out of my way to try and get soldiers under my command who could think on their feet, and who weren't afraid to speak their minds. Most of my superiors attempted to cultivate similar attitudes at all levels of leadership. I'm sure that a soldier who can't think was a wonderful concept back in the 1800's, but in modern combat he's just another body waiting to fill a bag.
Now, if we ever start fighting all-out wars again, perhaps we'll need some mindless cannon-fodder to charge machine-gun nests over open ground. Until then, smart leaders are well advised to develop the minds of their subordinates at every opportunity.
You asked a question about the jargon "Warfighter". It's part of a terminology system that uses the word "Soldier" to refer only to members of the US Army. That is the reason for needing a more inclusive term like "Warfighter". You're not obligated to use any of these words, of course. That's one of the good things about freedom.
I18N == Intergalacticization
Maybe it would be more useful if they didn't need to carry around so many gadgets.
I don't know if I agree, I totally have to make tons of decisions all the time when playing Call of Duty.
And the Seaman got an Article 15 for not filling out the correct paperwork for the ladder and appearing on the parade ground without his dogbowl.
By definition, you cannot be brainwashed into mindless obedience, or when an unlawful order is given, e.g. liquidate prisoners of war, the soldier, Marine, sailor, or airman will not question them.
More subtly, a finite period of service under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the perfect _antidote_ to collectivism. You've had you civil liberties curtailed, and now you want to have a life with minimal government living in your laundry.
You want to know why universal health care works in the military? You Body Is Government Property. They will write physical readiness requirements to ensure you stay fit, or they will administratively punt you. And when you are too old, say, 30 years of service, they punt you.
So it's a young person's game. But one that will cure you of a lot of collectivist ideas.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Running the family business for a few years and firing well paid people or cutting their salaries so the company could continue to pay taxes for their formerly nice salaries is what cured me of collectivism.
Watching various members of my family and friends mortgage their homes or properties to pay tax bills on wage taxes that were demanded by government long before moneys were even collected for jobs done... yeah, that kinda stuff cured me at an early age... thank you.
Government punishes any form of achievement or creativity that it doesn't directly sanction. I've seen proof, and I've been proof. 100% antidote to collectivism and faith in government / politicians, is running your own business, regardless how small or how large, doing something you're good at (and thus cannot be called "incompetent" by any qualified observer) and then watching the money go down the drain. Did you do twice as many jobs in one week than you normally used to? Did your taxes go even higher? Did your men work overtime? Did you notice the insane tax spike from that? Yeah, exactly. On the other hand, if you stop, smell the roses, and learn, you will also notice that government subsidizes bad business. A business with heavy expenses can depend on socialist/welfare for its poor decisions by having the government pay for them or write them off its taxes.
Remarkable how good business is punished through higher taxes, while bad business decisions are rewarded with write offs and tax credits...
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
We've moved into a zone where people think government _is_ a business. /. geeks should know that the difference between kernel and user-space is stark and heavily enforced. Certainly society is a lot more complex, but the need for distinction between government and business is as great.
Hence my usual approach of arguing for federalism: in supporting the Constitution against the collectivists, we can still support the right of individual states to do things we find kinda flaky, without craptastic decisions breeding new bureaucratic sacred cows at the federal level.
By the same token, you can't realistically argue a Ron Paul libertarian hand; the system shock would be too great. You have to let the collectivist seeds at the state level bear meager fruit against the traditional capitalistic seeds.
Certainly, the collectivists will cling to their sophistries, and claim all manner of distinctions to cover over the fundamental fecklessness of their ideas. While the collective "we" may not be true bright, I submit that there is enough low animal cunning to tell the difference.
Or else, we are completely baked, and I'm the idiot for thinking otherwise.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
"Everyone! Get ready to repulse the enemy attack" - The General
"Not now General-dude! I'm updating my Facebook, and my torrents are almost finished". - G.I. Joe
My
Ass
Rides
In
Navy
Equipment
Sir!
Did your C.O. get approval from the department of the Navy to allow you to make that comment?
also, I can't believe that Marines these days watch the first 20 minutes of Full Metal Jacket and think that what is depicted is something that should be imitated.
the maxim magazine-ification of our armed forces will hopefully come to an end soon
Thank you Dave Raggett
Nobody said it was the BEST reaction, but that its the COMMON reaction. I'm sure its stressful and they may regret it later, but the end result is dead people, including children.
From Wikipedia:
As I understand it, enlisted get stuck with much less freedom to have objections to orders, while officers are held to a much stricter standard in general behavior and ensuring the legality of their orders.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
> A better question is, have YOU ever been hit by a roadside bomb? What's that? No? Oh, then why don't you just STFU already?
No I haven't, but then I wasn't dumb enough to join the army where I can be ordered to throw away my life just to stuff some other guy's wallet.
Having people try to kill you kind of comes with the territory, you know?
While IANAL, I think you may misapprehend: an unlawful order is exactly that.
In a trial over the execution of an unlawful order, the judge is going to come down far more harshly on an officer than an enlisted person.
At least theoretically. Stuff like Abu Ghraib calls my point into question. As a squid, I'll tell you that, in the maritime case, if the ship parks itself on land or trades paint with another vessel, the Captain is usually toast, toast, toast, irrespective of the details.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Nowhere in any doctrine/manual/classroom/training exercise does it state the best reaction to an IED ambush is to start shooting blindly at non-combatants.
So soldiers don't always blinkeredly follow orders regardless of what they may be, and do in fact have very human reactions to stressful events such as being bombed ? Sounds like you just shot your own argument in the foot.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Someone has actually published a VERY good book (which was later picked up by other writers who've started writing on the issue or researching it). The book in question is short but cites a LOT of case law "Hologram of Liberty".
You may want to take a look at it. Its a heart breaker, and its published. Author is one Ken Royce / Boston T. Party.
On a separate point of yours, government IS a business. It is in the business of controlling others, or as it is sometimes known "in the business of governing people". That it does a remarkably good job at governing is obvious, that it does such a remarkably POOR job at solving problems is also obvious. That is because government is not meant to solve problems. Tyranny (essentially "rulership") is not meant to solve people's problems, but the ruler's problems. And government, whether in America, Europe, Asia or Africa, does this remarkably well. Hologram touches on this as well.
Am I holding some distaste for the common man? Yes. More and more every day and with every encounter. Why, you ask? Why not. So far the common man has sold his entire birthright for a mess of porridge, and didn't even get a GOOD quality porridge. Even my dogs are smarter than that, and they're just "dumb animals" right?
Government is only a necessary evil because some government teacher in a government approved or sanctioned school taught us government supplied materials that tell us that government is necessary. As if humans are incapable of resolving their issues amongst each other and require a gigantic institution with armed thugs to force them all into "compliance" for "their own good".
I will not apologize if my views seem abrasive, because I think the time to be "polite" on this issue has long passed. People are sheep because they don't pull their noses away from the pavement for even a single brief moment... and if they do, they are often scared by what they see and quickly dismiss it and return to the pointless rat race they partake in, every day. You'll have to excuse me for being so harsh in what I say, I understand I've pissed off a lot of /.'ers, but at this point, lying to make people happy is about the worst thing one can do.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Government is only a necessary evil because some government teacher in a government approved or sanctioned school taught us government supplied materials that tell us that government is necessary. As if humans are incapable of resolving their issues amongst each other and require a gigantic institution with armed thugs to force them all into "compliance" for "their own good". /.'ers, but at this point, lying to make people happy is about the worst thing one can do.
I will not apologize if my views seem abrasive, because I think the time to be "polite" on this issue has long passed. People are sheep because they don't pull their noses away from the pavement for even a single brief moment... and if they do, they are often scared by what they see and quickly dismiss it and return to the pointless rat race they partake in, every day. You'll have to excuse me for being so harsh in what I say, I understand I've pissed off a lot of
Government is a way we all delegate some boring tasks, like managing sewage, and hopefully enjoy our lives a little more for it.
"Necessary"? If you want to live above the level of a herdsman or subsistance farmer, you know, with contracts and currency and stuff, you sort of can't avoid a government. So a government is at least a highly practical thing, if not an absolute necessity, and even if it only maintains problems as opposed to solving them.
But people will remain sheep. The metaphor breaks down at the point where it is the duty of the shepherds to prod the sheep into shepherdry, and not into becoming wolves.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I didn't shoot my own argument in the foot, because it isn't my argument that soldiers always "blinkeredly follow orders". Perhaps you responded/quoted the wrong post, but if you read the thread, you'll clearly see that my stance is that soldiers DO NOT blindly follow orders. They do, however, follow their training, and NO training says to indiscriminately lay down suppressive fire and take out innocent women and children in doing so as the ignorant fool here claims we do.
We laugh that Anakin was able to take out the enemies entire army by blowing up one ship. Command and control need to be decentralized, we say.
But isn't it the case that commanders, by their nature, will always try to assume as much control as feasible? Most lack the ability to trust the outcome of a battle to someone else, especially someone who hasn't proven themselves to your level (else, they would be the commander).
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Actually, my words convey no positive or negative connotation. It's merely a statement of fact. They didn't shoot, so bad guys got away and innocent civlians lived. Anything beyond that is an inference not implied. If you're trying to figure out my personal bias, I'm proud of those Marines who hold back due to their training, adherence to the rules of engagement, and human decency. There are times where they could EASILY justify taking out civilians alongside bad guys, but they dont. These people who go on and on about US Soldiers (and implicating Marines) as just wanting to kill people have no idea. Yes, there may be a few who sincerely enjoy killing bad guys, but I've talked to several Sniper and infantry instructors and they agree on one thing: The human psyche does not handle killing another human very well. If you have friends who were snipers, or who were pulling triggers often to take out bad people, you'll note they came back from Iraq deeply affected. It takes them awhile to get readjusted to a healthy, normal and social environment.
No one hates war more than an Airman, Sailor, Soldier or Marine. No one.
Communications overload and levels of command is not a new military problem; for a good summary of how it played out in the British Navy, 1890-1916 try Andrew Gordon, The Rules of the Game.
In other words, you tell me that I cannot HIRE (aka contract/accord/agree/reward) someone else to manage my sewage? And perhaps reward them as they see fit, not as someone at a completely removed level sees fit?
You seem to want to force people to accept that government is the ONLY way things get done. Personally I have noticed that most government services are... ahem... SHIT. Wherever a private alternative was, it was either forced out of business by government interference, subsidized if it was a poor business or poorly performing, or it provided a better service. And half the time, there were people who were not willing to participate. For example, I had a damn good time up at an old relative's mountain ranch while I traveled back to where I was born. Want to know the irony? He was (before he died) a "subsistence" farmer/herder. Interestingly, when there were shortages in various fuels, energy, etc, when there were riots, revolts, brutal put downs of said revolts, that old farmer living up in a place no government thug cared to visit for any reason, he lived just fine. I used some of his "facilities" or as you would put it, "lack thereof"... and found myself revolted, at first, until I realized NOTHING he had would actually have "broken down" or "flooded" or "not worked" when the government turned off the utilities, either to punish those speaking out, or those unwilling to yield to the wolves... AHEM... as you call them "shepherds".
So as far as I'm concerned, you and I can disagree there. Also, he had other people watch his sheep, not the government. When the communists came, they butchered his sheep and forced him to move to the city. Strangely, they let him keep his house, so long as he worked in the fine "cooperative" they set up. Why? Because his house was a little ranch on a desolate mountain side that the commies in their ever present governmental state of mind, quickly butchered devoid of wildlife. They didn't log it as quickly, so by the time they "left" he was able to return, renovate and live out his days away from the city and the ever present lung cancer that is such a lovely part of that "living above the level of a subsistence farmer/herder" you speak of. Personally I'd rather live in a yurt village than be forced to live in a big city. Guess its a "priorities" thing.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
I don't fully disagree with your point, though I would phrase it more along capitalistic lines: competition is a natural requirement for systems not to suck. Competition is to economics as winter is to agriculture. Stuff needs to die off and recycle for nature to function.
Homo Bureaucratus succumbs to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy
However, don't toss the baby with the bathwater. The government has driven significant societal change, e.g. integration of the armed forces, and significant technological change, e.g. the intertubes.
Like most things in life, it's hard to cleanly argue an extreme viewpoint, though I'm generally committed to the "less is more" school of thought.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Ironically, all that government "did" could've been done cheaper, better and more easily had they NOT integrated the armed forces, had they NOT set themselves up as master and executioner of communications, etc. I'm not at all sorry to say that we do have to disagree on those points. By the looks of it, government is a might tad unhappy that people have access to information and are so freely giving it around. Government meaning an institution that is like a living organism in that its self preservation is the prime directive of all its lower cells, while its higher cells (politicians, and those who actually own politicians) are more interested in their personal gain. Sort of how the body does everything it can to survive, but the mind can occasionally sacrifice the body for a cause it sees as worthwhile... the same is true of political and military rulership organs. They're willing and able to sacrifice the lower cells of the body (read the plebeians and willing servants/military) in order to achieve their own prosperity, and happiness.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Hell, IMHO, the USA should've never had a big military, we didn't need it, the country is 90% indigestible (heavily armed populace, with plenty of civvies capable of very good marksmanship and other "skills", might not hold off an army, but can make effective occupation undesirable even to the Chinese who don't really give a shit about their military men whatsoever).
Had there not been an integrated and huge army, the USA might've never entered into the first world war, and germany would've properly crushed the english as they deserved. Then, Europe might've not gone half socialist and half communist. Had this not occurred, Hitler would've never existed as a big politician, because the germans would've not been betrayed in their negotiated surrender (for which Wilson betrayed them by imposing conditions unagreed upon before the surrender). And if by some miracle Hitler would've come to power without the massive aid of German anger at defeat and betrayal, his obedient "integrated" military would've crushed Stalin's obedient military, and probably removed soviet communism from the world. But much like how twice as many jews as were reported to have lived in the whole of Europe (and probably "the world" at the time have now been "discovered" to have been killed in the camps, it is apparent that history is changed to accommodate the victors, and the victors are not the Americans, nor the Russians, nor the people of any country that partakes of these wars. The leaders are the politicians and the influential men who own them. They always have been.
Had Europe been allowed to burn in the flames of the tyranny of its own making, perhaps today the world would be a better place. But this is no different than treating symptoms. You either treat the underlying cause, or you stay sick but mask the symptoms until the disease is so advanced, and you've paid so much that you either can't afford the medication anymore, or the disease breaks out either way. Its much healthier, cheaper, and faster to let it break out and ride it out, or actually TREAT THE DISEASE. The disease is obedient, fearful, stupidity. In other words, plain human stupidity, at that.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
What ever happened to your plan to leave?
You're just a god damned flip flopper.