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?
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
A good argument in support of women in the military?
That's almost certainly true. I remember reading books about Vietnam and reading that a lot of commanders on the ground ended up being micromanaged by commanders back at base resulting in some incredibly bone headed moves. Repeating that certainly cannot be a good thing. But to be fair, there are certainly good aspects to this idea. Maximizing the amount of useful intelligence to forces on the ground cannot be a bad thing. The fog of war never really goes away, but this can definitely help. I remember reading somewhere that the future warrior stuff they sent to Iraq to test (laptops, PDAs and the like) proved to be extremely helpful IN SOME SITUATIONS. When troops were out on semi planned raids, the live intel proved to be a big bonus. But the rest of the time (regular patrol), the majority of the gear proved to be useless and just and lot of extra weight. As is the case with most technological advances (in any field, not just the military), it has its good and its bad.
We have a quote of the week on our agency's intranet page (which sometimes stays up for two weeks). Earlier this month, the quote was:
If you tell people where to go but not how to get there, you will be amazed at the results. - General George S. Patton, Jr.
Another version of the quote is:
Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.
Regardless, the point still stands. Micromanagement can be a killer both in the private sector as well as the military (though the military version is a bit more serious). Interestingly enough, Erwin Rommel actively pursued the less-is-more command style. He started the process when he first became an officer, wrote about it and refined it over the years. Since Patton was known to read Rommel's books, it is most likely that in addition to his own views on command, Patton learned and applied what Rommel (and others) had written. As any good leader should do.
Based on your comments, it appears there are officers who should also be reading, and heeding, Rommel's words.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
That's where HCI design comes into play. I've been out of the military for over a decade, but a HUD with useful, non-invasive information would have been great for the things I did back there (air assault engineer).
-map or satellite image of the area I'm in
-location of my squad members, overlay of fire arches. Even better, an indicator on my HUD that tell me if I'm aiming in the direction of a friendly.
-IR overlay of body heat or engines
-ammo left in the magazine
-Corner-shot
-compass, GPS coordinates, and laser distance measurements for calling in fire support
-and, as a special AAE wish: map with blast radius of the charges I just set. Guesstimating how far back to take cover sucks under time pressure.
Now IM from the commanding general would suck, but that's what small slivers of duct tape are for.
You mkae some very good points, but I think there's one detail missing... that is, most of the examples you give are just examples of making it easier to kill someone, or making it harder for them to kill you.
The "information age" groundwarrior has tools that are slightly different, because we're talking about advances in communication and information. Out of all the examples you mention, probably the second most relevant is that of airplanes, since they were originally invaluable for recon, and eventually important for many other reasons. That is, they greatly increased the information available in near real-time for field commanders. The most relevant would be radios in tanks, since that allowed instant communication.
Like any organization looking to make use of instant communication tools, the military needs to work out the kinks in its delegation scheme, and determine when the tools are more a hindrance than a harm.
I may oversee a lot of work in India, but I get annoyed as hell when I get 20 IMs an hour asking for guidance on trivialities... so I delegated some of the authority to local staff. Now we are more efficient, but I still have sufficient oversight.
In other words, it's more about how it is used than whether the tools are problematic.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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