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."

Comments

Micromanagment and abu ghraib

[damburger]

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.

Re:Micromanagment and abu ghraib

[HBI]

Taking things that happen between headquarters "tactical operations centers" or TOCs and individual units, then extrapolating that into the communications that happen between higher echelon headquarters or logistical operations is a stretch at best.

At a real TOC somwhere like Iraq, you have 7x24 coverage by people whose job is to report upward on events at that locale. Therefore, a small unit action becomes well known to those in the chain of command associated with that unit. However, a random DFAC (mess hall) at Camp Victory isn't reporting up to its chain with anything approaching that frequency. In fact, that might happen once a week or once a month, aside from regular orders for foodstuffs and personnel actions. Moreover, all the tactical systems associated with this reporting are used by actual warfighters. Those engaged in logistical work will never see such a system.

Same goes for prisons - they have no tactical systems.

Yes, I just came back from there in late April.

Re:Micromanagment and abu ghraib

[TubeSteak]

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. I was thinking more along the lines of:

If the Generals have enough time to be micromanaging individual operations...
Maybe there are too many Generals?

Re:Micromanagment and abu ghraib

[marnerd]

Actually, there is a lot of work going on to bring these sorts of systems to logistics. Autonomous Logistics systems on the platforms to report back fuel, ammunition and maintenance requirements; systems to automate the flow of logistics requests both within and between services; software to tie the weapon system maintenance manuals directly to the procurement systems to automate ordering; program to improve visibility to facilitate smarter forward positioning of materiel, etc.

Some of this is fielded, but a lot of it is still under development. But don't say "never".

Re:Micromanagment and abu ghraib

[Foobar of Borg]

...are used by actual warfighters...

Yes, I just came back from there in late April.

Since you say you have been there, I have a question. Why are soldiers now being referred to as "warfighters"? Is it to have a catch-all phrase that refers to both U.S. soldiers and the mercenaries the U.S. is also using? Or, is it something else?

Re:Micromanagment and abu ghraib

[jockeys]

it's because "soldier" refers to the Army, and is not inclusive of marines, sailors and airmen. "warfighter" refers to all branches.

Not all it's cracked up to be?

[DesScorp]

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.

Re:Not all it's cracked up to be?

[jollyreaper]

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. I agree with you with all this networked warrior bs but I'll be the devil's advocate. Look at your WWII dogface. He's a future warrior, at least compared to the WWI doughboy. And he's futuristic compared to what they had in the Crimean War and futuristic to the Roman legionnaire all the way back to the first monkey who hit another monkey with a bone after a visit from the Monolith. And using a bone was pretty high-tech compared to nails and teeth.

Now if we look back, a lot of tech we take for granted as good, solid, traditional equipment had some serious teething problems. Guns were notoriously fickle and unreliable hundreds of years ago, why not trust in arrows and true steel instead? And you could also complain about the trend towards wearing heavier and heavier armor, it slows a warrior down! Why, without armor I can move fast enough I don't have to worry about taking the hit in the first place. Then there was the matter of the crossbow allowing a rude peasant to have the killing power of a proper archer with a longbow, the kind of fine soldier who had to train his whole life to use the weapon well. What's worse, the man with the crossbow could kill a godly knight with the flick of his finger. Contemptible! Unchristian!

In more recent times, tanks were belching, breakdown-prone monstrosities as much a danger to their occupants as the enemy. But we saw there was a good idea there and continued to develop them. Airplanes were primitive, crude, and ultimately were seen as having a negligible effect in WWI but gee, they sure were flashy. And they became invaluable by WWII. Then there's the matter of adopting steam propulsion in a naval warship, that's just not the way things were done! A proper seaman fights under sail. And the first steamships did suck a great deal. But gradually the technology was improved to the point that no captain would dream of doing without it.

The Germans were the first to use radios in their tanks. That was seen as likely to cause great confusion and no other military really considered it until the Germans kicked a whole lot of ass. Then it seemed like a good idea.

I think that the current land warrior concept is probably an awful, terrible, no good idea. But I also think in twenty or thirty years, we're going to be seeing a lot of stuff on the battlefield that soldiers will consider absolutely valuable, cannot do without but we'll still be able to trace the design lineage back to the useless crap they were twiddling around with today.

Re:Not all it's cracked up to be?

[icegreentea]

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.

Re:Not all it's cracked up to be?

[Goalie_Ca]

All we need is an aimbot, a wallhack, and some sort of enemy radar device.

Re:Not all it's cracked up to be?

[Red Flayer]

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.

Like with a GPS

[xgr3gx]

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

Re:Like with a GPS

[Orgasmatron]

Seriously?

When I need a laugh, I turn mine on and ask it to give me directions to places around my city, or directions to some of the small towns nearby.

On the other hand, the GPS box isn't a person, and it certainly isn't higher than me in a military chain of command. The real problem, as the summary mentions, is micromanagement. The guys on the ground need information so that they can make their own decisions, and they need us (yes, us, the people who aren't there) to back them up when they make reasonable decisions, even if they are sometimes wrong.

Re:Like with a GPS

[Reapy]

Excellent point which I think exactly sums up the problem described in the article in a way most of us can relate to.

I think the solution to the problem is the same I had when first using a GPS. I would miss turns, almost run a red light, turn too early, make turns down streets that I wouldn't normally drive down, all cause the gps was really distracting in its precision. Moreover, I missed lots of roadsigns, didn't have the same focus I did normally when trying to memorize where I'm going or pay attention to that innate direction sense we have that says, "I made 2 lefts, and i'm sort of paralleling that one road I was going down, so I can probably take a side street here and get back to it."

After a while, I learned how to use it properly, and ignore it most of the time. When I'm completely lost, it's a guide to get me out of a trap, and a guide to help me when I make a wrong turn to get me where I need to. Overall, it really makes my navigation a lot better, but I had to learn to continue using the tools I had, along with the GPS, to find a "better" way to navigate.

I think the same will be true with the upcoming army tools. Information overload, until we learn to naturally process out what is not relevant, and instantly find what is, and knowledge of the devices to know when to IGNORE what it is telling you to do.

Eventually over time the devices will have better algorithms, will know when to ignore data itself, and deliver the most pointed message to the user. It is like any new technology, we have to learn to incorporate it into our life, and the tool has to adapt to our uses over time.

And that, like anything, takes hard work! *guiltily goes back to work*

Re:Like with a GPS

[xgr3gx]

Yeah, sometimes it's pretty funny what it comes up with for directions.
You are off route
Please turn around
Turn left at the next intersection, then turn left
Do you wish to recalcuate your route [Y/N]

GPS devices should have the following phase added:
Clearly you're not following my directions, so you're on your fscking own
...ha :)

Vietnam redux?

[JThaddeus]

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.

Re:Vietnam redux?

[smooth wombat]

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.

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.

Puts me in mind of Age of Sail navies

[jollyreaper]

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.

Re:Puts me in mind of Age of Sail navies

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

There's been an argument that the British Navy was successful because of mechanisms for monitoring captains. Lieutenants, for example, kept their own logs which could be reviewed by the captain's superiors.

Barbara Tuchman's book, _The First Salute_, has lots of anecdotes of captains getting court-martialed for not following orders, even when the orders were internally contradictory.

Guns of the Patriots

[melkore]

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.

Obligatory StarCraft remark

[Anonymous Coward]

NO WAY!

My experience with StarCraft, a 'real-time strategy' simulator, taught me that micromanagement was the KEY to winning!!

Re:Obligatory StarCraft remark

[quanticle]

Maybe if you play Protoss, but certainly not if you play Zerg.

Ability of a human to multi-task

[fprintf]

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.

Re:Ability of a human to multi-task

[Anonymous Coward]

A good argument in support of women in the military?

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[cduffy]

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.

email?

[Botched]

E-mail? Text messages? Anyone running a raid knows that everyone has to install ventrilo.

Or that the people will bring them home...

[FatSean]

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.

Re:Or that the people will bring them home...

[jriding]

Last time I checked these "Soldiers" or better Marines / Army / Navy / Air force. Signed up on the dotted line to protect the country. I greatly appreciate them and all they do. While signing on the line they knew or should have known it was not just a free ride to college or a job to just hang out with. If the country goes to war even if they don't agree with the war it IS there job to go fight it.
Not complain about it and refuse to be involved because they never thought they would have too shoot / kill someone.
Its called protecting the country and that is the job they agreed to.

I may not agree with some of the choices that upper management decides but I do not have the choice to decide to stay employed but choose not to do my job.

Re:Or that the people will bring them home...

[quanticle]

Except that calling "invading Irak" protecting the US country is a *very big stretch*.

Except that its not the individual soldiers role to question that objective. The question of invading Iraq is a political question that needs to be handled by our civilian politicians. And, while you may think its a shame that the military didn't object more strongly, I personally think its a good thing. I'd much rather live in a state where the civilians control the military, rather than vice versa.

Re:Or that the people will bring them home...

[MrSteveSD]

Except that its not the individual soldiers role to question that objective.

If a soldier believes their orders to be illegal, then they should not obey them. Far more suffering in this world has been caused by soldiers obeying orders than by disobeying ones they felt were wrong or illegal.

The Nuremberg trials stated that a war of aggression is the supreme international crime, which differs from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows. In the case of Iraq, what that means is that although the US and allies did not directly kill over a million Iraqis (Lancet and ORB surveys), the mere act of waging the war encompasses all the chaos and carnage that follows.

Re:Or that the people will bring them home...

[bkr1_2k]

I might say, as an ex-service member, that invading other sovereign states isn't the same thing as "protecting their country".

I'm not saying I disagree with your point that they knew or should have known what they were getting into, just that some people actually believe protecting their country actually entails protecting their country rather than starting wars in other countries.

Re:Or that the people will bring them home...

[MrMarket]

Most of the military I know will proudly put their lives on the line to protect their country and our freedom. No questions asked.

The problem is that it's not clear that our operations in Iraq are achieving either of the above.

It gets more difficult when US soldiers show up and realize they are being used by tribal leaders to wage civil war or settle old scores. That's not what they signed up for.

Re:Or that the people will bring them home...

[Hal_Porter]

Ah, a false dichotomy. A military refusing orders is hardly the same thing as a military that controls civilians. Have fun with that empty rhetoric. Not really. Bush is elected. He ordered the military to invade Iraq. Civilian control over the military dictates that they have to do it. America has more serious enemies than Saddam and they would be emboldened if the military were not under civilian control. Soldiers not under control are a threat to a free society themselves too.

A future adminstration has to decide whether to keep the soldiers there or not, not the soldiers.

Too Much Mutlitasking?

[duplo1]

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.

Re:Too Much Mutlitasking?

[lelitsch]

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.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[labmonkey09]

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.

The "Colonial Marines" in the movie Aliens

[stevegee58]

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.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[Broken scope]

How many of these proposed drones have no direct human input?

Re:You forgot the important part.

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[JohnnyComeLately]

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'm the only one a bit worried...

[redscare2k4]

...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.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[corbettw]

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."

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[MrNaz]

"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.

With Soldier Radio and WNW, comm will jump again

[JohnnyComeLately]

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.

Nothing New

[onkelonkel]

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.

Re:Nothing New

[dave420]

Schizophrenia?

Locals

[hey]

I see lots of IMing with HQ but not much talking to the local people. That's why the war is being lost.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[stewbacca]

That's not flamebait at all. Soldiers are TRAINED to not think for themsleves from the minute they get to bootcamp until they reach their MOS. Not true at all. I was an Army Instructor (Intel) for 7 years. We threw out any and all "old-school" courseware that didn't allow for soldiers to think for themselves. Now ALL of the courseware is exactly that. This isn't a WWII Army anymore, and soldiers DO think for themselves--especially the csenior NCO ranks.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[hkb]

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

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[quanticle]

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.

Enigma: WW II Germans micro-managed.

[Carlk]

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.

A Grain of Salt

[olyar]

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.

Re:Soldiers Have a Hard Time Thinking for Themselv

[Omestes]

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.

Legal orders

[sean.peters]

It is every soldiers job to question the legal validity of their orders

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.

Re:From Experience

[Hal_Porter]

I was CJTF-82's Knowledge Management NCOIC for OEF 8.

What, in the name of sanity, is that supposed to mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJTF-76

Combined Joint Task Force - 82 (CJTF-82) was a US led subordinate formation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It served as both the National Command Element for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, reporting directly to the Commander, United States Central Command, and as ISAF's Regional Command East. It was replaced by Combined Joint Task Force - 101 (CJTF-101) in early April of 2008 [1].

CJTF-82 was headquartered at Bagram Airfield.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Commissioned_Officer_in_Charge

Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge

The designation Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge, usually abbreviated to NCOIC (or NCO I/C), signifies an individual in the enlisted ranks of a military unit who has limited command authority over others in the unit.

OEF8 is Operation Enduring Freedom 8 presumably.

Re:You forgot the important part.

[sumdumass]

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?"

No, you seem to be confused with the "they are taught not to say I don't wanna do it because I can get hurt" with meaning that they can't think at all. The fact is they are asking if they should be throwing a greenade into this house. we have seen where they are hauled into court and prosecuted when they don't make sure the enemy is in there instead of innocent civilian. We actually ask our military personnel to do a great deal of discrimination on targets and potential threats in order to minimize innocent casualties as much as possible. It isn't a situation where they point the guns and start firing until they reach the other side of the street/town. Not to mention that on top of all this, not only do they have to discern their targets, but they carry only a limited amount of ammo and grenades which means that they have to use the most effective uses of them or find themselves in a situation where they can't shoot back.

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.

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?

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.

Re:You forgot the important part.

[c6gunner]

Retired Warrior God.

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.

Re:You forgot the important part.

[smittyoneeach]

Soldiers are the product of collectivism and brainwashing

There is a good point here, but I think you've over-achieved. Any military member (I've been a sailor these decades) swears "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and obey the lawful orders of officers appointed over them" (quick brain dump, not to be confused with a proper quote of the oath).
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.