Advanced Surveillance Tech for Unmanned Drones Credited In Iraq

mathoda writes "Investigative reporter Bob Woodward states that America has developed secret capabilities 'to locate, target and kill key individuals in groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgency and renegade Shia militias, or so-called special groups. The operations incorporated some of the most highly classified techniques and information in the US government.' The LA Times now reports, 'As part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq, according to US military and intelligence officials.' Part of the capabilities appear to be that the unmanned flying drones can track targets even inside of buildings." Update by J : Bruce Schneier's readers have some thoughts.

Comments

Asymmetric warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem that hese are exactly the kinds of weapons that are needed to fight this new asymmetric war. Pretty amazing stuff. I wonder how much of this is propaganda and how much is real.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[aurispector]

If it works, does it matter? The US military has mostly been very good with the use of disinformation over the years. Plenty of reason to be very skeptical of any story about this.

They have obviously figured out how to leverage some technology. Whether it's this or some other method it appears to be working. It could be a less advanced system being used in a new way, or it could be a more advanced system that hasn't been disclosed. They get the coolest toys first.

The best part is that this will allow them to seriously reduce US military presence in Iraq and finally finish the job in Afghanistan. It seriously pissed me off that they would screw up in Iraq for so long, getting so many people killed in the process. These new techniques will go into standard practice and hopefully make any future operations easier and faster.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[IanHurst]

Mod parent up, please.

It's possible to oppose the Iraq war without denying its progress since General Petraeus' takeover, the Anbar Awakening, the Surge, and whatever tech (real or fake) was mentioned in the article.

Even if we never know the true reasons for the improvements, that they're a blessing for the Iraqis is undeniable.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[Elektroschock]

We can only hope a nation like Germany will grow the balls to send it's troops to the much tougher combat areas

The problem is constitutional and cultural. In Germany is a crime to prepare an agression war while the Bush doctrine explicitly permits that. Don't expect Germans to consent with attacks on sovereign nations as Pakistan which by the way has an atom bomb, so it makes sense to care a bit more about public opinion in these states and the stability of the regime.

The United States government finds it appropriate to apply torture techniques to insurgents while it is off the radar in Europe. And of course you openly question if its illigitimate to fight a foreign military occupation and their puppet regime. Where does terrorism start and where does the national freedom fighter come in? It is a matter of perspective. Note that it is a civil war scenario. Everyone knows that Bremer's decision to resolve the republican guard made the Iraq situation possible.

Further you can raise the question if the insurgency in the areas under American control is not a violent response to their cultural insensivity. Use of force is natural in a war scenario but in a nation with blood revenge family members of yesterday's collateral damages tend to take it personal. I don't really know why...

What I do know is that the nazis invented the secret weapon endsieg propaganda. So the same scheme from the Americans in the context of an election campaign sounds frightening...

I mean, no one wants the Americans to lose. It is more like Gates-Seinfeld. You feel compassion for them.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[plover]

I think we'll eventually find out what turned things around, although you can bet a large number of people won't believe it. Personally, I believe it's the Anbar Awakening that's had the most impact. After years of anti-American propaganda and war, the Iraqis are coming to realize that if they cooperate with the Americans, we'll leave their country faster and less damaged, and that we weren't lying to them about helping them rebuild.

In some ways this is paralleling Japan in WWII. The Pentagon has always said stuff like, "We're going in there with a copy of the Marshall Plan." But they've always made it sound like "as soon as the Plan is laid out Iraq will cooperate," and that's been nothing but a sack of crap. Perhaps the reason the Marshall Plan succeeded so well in Japan is not that the Plan was so great, or that the Emperor said "lay down your weapons", but that the country was simply exhausted from years of endless war and bombardment. Iraq is now almost as beaten down as Japan was, making the Awakening possible.

Hm. The Administration has said almost from the beginning that this would take years. If this was actually their strategy all along, it was a criminal act of mass murder to perpetrate it.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[Dun Malg]

perhaps it was just a combination of the surge, elimination of key targets and conversion of sunni groups

Most likely a combination of the three. The surge plus the high value target elimination apparently made the "foreign fighters/al qaeda in iraq" redouble their efforts by escalating their methods. They were always vicious borderline insane fanatics (you'd have to be to go running to Iraq to support your cause), but this escalation apparently made it abundantly clear to the Sunnis that they weren't interested in Iraq and its people so much as killing infidels and infidel "collaborators". When the local Sunnis stop hiding and feeding you and instead run to the police stations and say "hey, the Syrian motherfuckers who killed my neighbor for selling a Pepsi to a US soldier are in the building next door making bombs", well, then you are pretty much fucked.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[IanHurst]

Yeah. Iraq is not a turd. Iraq is full of real people dying every day because of our war. Characterizing a policy that saves a lot of their lives as "polishing a turd" is so fucking wrong I don't even have the words to describe it.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[Elektroschock]

Maybe he was but the BRD only started in 1947. Before the military occupation did not work very well and people just wanted to start to get things going again. Adenauer was an old man with a pre-war political career. The main advantage was that the whole political class learned its lessons and the extremists were wiped out. They started from zero. It was that post-Endsieg scenerio. People were tired with revolutionary politics and wanted to get things running again. Adenauer had this strong catholic conservative bias. Other politicians like his old opponent social democrat Otto Braun wanted to get Prussia back which was a stronghold of protestantism. Unfortunately the Americans resolved Prussia. But the tradition for which Prussian social democracy stood for, and its bias against authoritarian rule, was adopted by the conservatives. The overall social situation forced politicians to solve problems. And under the Soviets things went much worse. No experiments. You had a political class that had an experience of prosecution and no surprise they were progressive on civil liberties and rule of law. Basically what post-war Germany helped was the total surrender, the whole game was played by the nazis till the very end. As a contrast after WWI it was anarchy and civil war.

Another reason why it was irrational to oppose the occupation was that the occupation was the lesser evil as opposed to the Soviet (Stalin!) occupation. Note that the Soviets troups expelled millions of people from their land in Eastern Prussia, Pommern and Schlesien and drove them west. Also the Russian troups raped women on a large scale. The Americans just appeared to be the guys to go with.

In Afganistan there was quite a chance because the taliban installed a terror regime. Same in Iraq but there the brutal dictator kept the different tribes in check. Americans were told there were "the Iraqi people". Their whole campaign was a bit autistic. And then they find out, oh, there are different tribes and groups which hate each other, how could we know. The learning curve of the American public was horrible to watch.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

They were always vicious borderline insane fanatics (you'd have to be to go running to Iraq to support your cause.

I was going to point out that when a similar group of people went running to afghanistan to push Russia out, they were hailed as heroes.

But then when I quoted your statement I realized that on its own, it is hard to tell which side of the conflict in Iraq it applies to.
Or Vietnam.

Re:Asymmetric warfare

[budgenator]

We have had more of our troops KIA in one month during Viet Nam as we have had during the whole Iraq war.

Re:Does anyone else find it erie that we're

[maxume]

Is there some way that we could get further and further away from the plot in a Terminator movie?

how long until

[FudRucker]

the US Government starts using this technology on its own people?

they easily forget we are the constituents (not the enemy).

Re:how long until

[Hurricane78]

Where do you think they tested it first? ;)

Re:how long until

[nurb432]

And you don't think it already is?

Re:A Comparitave Analasys of the Intelegence

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligence would help in grammar class. Taliban live in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.

Bush and McCain don't want to admit this

[antifoidulus]

but the "surge" and military tactics are only a small part of why violence has fallen in Iraq recently.

Re:Bush and McCain don't want to admit this

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure how credible it is to say that the surge only was a "small" part. Would the positive development have taken place if it had not happened? Difficult to say. There would certainly have been a lot more hardline militants for the softer ones to convince.

You might argue that whether it's small or large doesn't matter. Small words are however important in politics, especially when you accuse presidential candidates of being avoidant and dishonest of issues, a serious accusation. If you do, you should strive to be as accurate and honest as possible yourself.

Re:Bush and McCain don't want to admit this

[sumdumass]

Well, interestingly enough, listening to "fucktard Bush" or not, that was the entire goal of keeping troops over there in the first place. The entire "stay the course" message was to was supposed to let the Iraqi people know we weren't going to hand them over to the insurgents or Al Qaida.

What people seem to ignore is that after tossing saddam out of power, the goal was to get Iraq back on it's own. When the dems though arbitrarily losing a war would help get them elected, the violence went up exponentially. The more they screamed "immediate withdraw" or "when I'm president, I will hold my head high while telling out military to hold their head in shame, tuck their tails between their legs and come back home", the more the violence and recruiting happened. Then, when in spite of all this, even after Al qaida issued support for democrats in 2004 and again in 2006, Bush sends more troops over which not only allowed us to change how we were operating but it showed the people of Iraq that we weren't giving up on them and they could expect us to keep our word. And our word has always been, we would leave when Iraq was stable enough to take care of themselves.

The surge brought more then just troops into Iraq. It brought renewed hope for the people. It brought security to certain areas that others saw and said I want that so they started pointing out where the road side bombs were. They started pelting th people planting them with rocks when they came into their neighborhoods. We were able to maintain security around things like tankers filled with ammonia or chlorine that have been driven into crowded markets and exploded in some insane attempt to turn opinion against us.

The surge itself didn't create everything we see today in Iraq. But what it did was bring conditions into Iraq that encouraged and allowed the progress we see today so in a way, it is responsable for it even though the credit needs to go to some of the people in Iraq, their security forces, police, government, and communities that just said I've had enough, too.

Re:Bush and McCain don't want to admit this

[IanHurst]

I certainly don't disagree with what you wrote. In fact I think you're restating my point in more words.

The Surge was always about creating conditions in which Awakening movements could prosper, and I have nothing but the highest respect for Gen. Petraeus. If I were religious I'd call the man a Godsend.

Re:Bush and McCain don't want to admit this

[Uberbah]

The entire Iraqi operation was supposed to be over, from invasion to pull out, in six weeks. Six months at the most, according to Rumsfeld. How's that working out for us?

The entire purpose of the surge was to provide stability so political reconciliation could happen. It's failed. Meanwhile, Bushco talks about how "the surge is over" while the troop levels are still much higher than they were pre-surge.

Re:Bush and McCain don't want to admit this

[IanHurst]

"The entire purpose of the surge was to provide stability so political reconciliation could happen."

No. Political reconciliation is not something you resolve with combat forces. Iraqis will manage it or fail at it in the coming decades.

The purpose of the surge was to *finally* provide a basic level of security in Iraq so that the Iraqis themselves could rise to counter the insurgency. And it's worked so far. The number of civilian deaths is a fraction of what it was before the surge and the awakening. Sadr's forces have been decimated and are hiding in Iran. Al Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray. Whatever Rumsfeld thought was supposed to happen in Iraq(I certainly won't defend anything he said), the Surge and Awakening are *not* failures.

Re:Does anyone else find it erie that we're

[BitterOldGUy]

Is there some way that we could get further and further away from the plot in a Terminator movie?

We stop using robotic drones?

Personally, I like them, It saves our troops' lives and I'd really would like to know what the Taliban are thinking when a robot comes for them.

It's not a human with a family. It's not a human that thinks it's going to heaven to 42 virgins or whatever. It's a machine with the sole purpose of killing them. I just like to image that these things are their worst nightmare and it's striking more terror into them than the Taliban and al-Queida could ever have produced in their innocent victims.

Re:America FUCK YEAH!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

for anyone who missed this gem...

Re:Why not use this tech to avoid bombing children

[Anonymous Coward]

> And before you guys flame me, I'm an Arab living in Israel, and I'm sick of hearing people here wail the same thing over and over again when an "innocent" person gets killed in Gaza.

Yes, because obviously the children who get killed were not innocent at all, the little bastards. After all, when you choose to be born in a warzone, you have only yourself to blame when you get shot.

Dude, you are insane.

Re:Does anyone else find it erie that we're

[Brain_Recall]

UAVs are inevitable. We have the technology to begin removing people from some dangerous positions, so we are. UAVs kind of remind me of early airplanes. They were used for quite awhile as just simple reconnaissance, then someone had the neat idea of strapping a gun to one.
Of course, unmanned does not mean autonomous. There's still someone in a pilot seat pushing the buttons.

Re:We do

[enrevanche]

If you perform an action that knowingly will kill innocents, even if it kills a terrorist as well, you yourself are a terrorist.

Re:A Comparitave Analasys of the Intelegence

[mkiwi]

That comment is so ironic that I really don't know what to say.

Where the Taliban live has absolutely nothing to do with grammar. It's more like geography and political science.

Re:Why not use this tech to avoid bombing children

[IanHurst]

If killing children were America's goal, every child from Iraq to Afghanistan would be dead already.

A simpler explanation for the civilian deaths is the USA abhors it, and insurgents (or terrorists or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them - I don't care) know it. Its avoidance of civilian deaths means that by living with civilians you ensure the US will be more reluctant to attack you and will take a very real propaganda hit every time it does.

Nobody with respect for innocent life would ever adopt this tactic, and "civilized" armies are forbidden from it for that and some other reasons. Not realizing this difference represents a major propaganda coup for insurgents.

Re:Why not use this tech to avoid bombing children

[IanHurst]

I think even if you believe the US is indifferent to the morality of civilian deaths (which it may or may not be - you can make a fair argument either way), it is at least aware that each is a propaganda victory for its enemies.

Given that Iraq is a counter-insurgency operation, it would be wildly irrational for the US to do anything but strive to avoid civilian deaths simply on *pragmatic* grounds. Nevertheless, there have been a lot of civilian deaths, so to explain that you could argue that the world's foremost military is actually a wildly irrational organization incapable of grasping that it's helping its enemies. Or you can argue that insurgents have worked out a good way to avoid getting shot. Personally I'd employ Occam's razor at this point and go with the latter.

But wait, there's more

[tuxgeek]

Obligatory Orwellian usage:

They're just perfecting the system there before they start using it on the US civilian population.

Your "logic" is failing.

[khasim]

Nevertheless, there have been a lot of civilian deaths, so to explain that you could argue that the world's foremost military is actually a wildly irrational organization incapable of grasping that it's helping its enemies.

So you admit that there have been lots of civilian deaths.

Or you can argue that insurgents have worked out a good way to avoid getting shot.

Ummm, did you somehow miss your own statement about "a lot of civilian deaths"?

It doesn't seem like it is "a good way to avoid getting shot" when we are shooting them and anyone near them.

Personally I'd employ Occam's razor at this point and go with the latter.

Seeing as how that would require that the "insurgents" be both dead (lots of civilian deaths) and alive (good way to avoid getting shot) I think you should really review what "Occam's razor" is.

Re:Does anyone else find it erie that we're

[mOdQuArK!]

Just remember that any technology developed that is effective against the insurgency will also be effective against our own local populations, and with reduced potential for pesky little details like human "conscience" to get in the way.

Re:A Comparitave Analasys of the Intelegence

[budgenator]

The way it usually works in real life is
1 part better technology,
1 part better strategy,
2 parts better tactics,
3 parts better trained troops
2 part less foreign financial aid to the insurgents,
1 part insurgents getting scared shitless because they are getting killed left and right

Re:To clarify

[aurispector]

"Personally I was in favor of kicking Saddam out, however when in the first few days of the war the US disbanded ALL of Iraq's existing military and civil institutions, I knew they had stepped into quicksand."

What the hell WERE they thinking? New Orleans went to hell within days of Katrina. Remember the blackout riots in New York? What made them think an entire country could exist without a police force? GOD it still pisses me off to think about it. We could have been out by now with thousands of soldiers lives saved if they had been smarter about it. Fuck people like Saddam but that was the height of stupidity.