Slashdot Mirror
Meet the Men Who Deploy Airstrikes
Lanxon writes "Wired followed US Army Staff Sergeant Kevin Rosner into Afghanistan to see first-hand the tools, tactics, and pressures involved in coordinating military airstrikes. This lengthy piece explores the people and technology involved in high-risk airborne warfare, from their perspective. From the article: 'Strapped to his chest, Rosner carries a handheld video player called a "Rover," built by L3 Communications, a New York-based defense contractor. The device, the size and shape of a PSP game console and costing tens of thousands of dollars, reads signals transmitted by the camera pods strapped to the underside of all NATO fighter aircraft. With his Rover, Rosner can see everything a pilot sees, from the pilot's perspective. On his back he carries a radio programmed with secure frequencies that tie him directly to the pilots overhead and to his unit's headquarters, several miles away. At the headquarters, another JTAC monitors a bigger, more sophisticated video terminal that displays the same video Rosner sees, plus other data.'"
you're forgetting that all this expensive technology was at least partially developed to avoid mistakes leading to civilian casualties.
weinersmith
They didn't explain why I have to get 5 kills to get an airstrike :(
As an Army qualified and certified JFO, let me just say that Air Force JTACs are some very highly trained individuals, many of which who could easily work for the FAA (as airspace deconfliction is one of their primary jobs and they're damn good at it). Close Air Support, or any sort of Fires Support for that matter, are very stressful and complicated tasks, and if your calculations or designation are wrong, 2000lb JDAMs can easily end up coming down on the heads of either friendlies or non-coms.
The Joint Service Joint Fires Observer course itself is no joke, and I can only imagine what type of training the JTACs themselves go through, but I have a very good idea.
Not fair to attack the individuals. They're regular people just doing what they're trained (and ordered) to do.
If, on the other hand you want to go after the political policies that put the individuals in that position in the first place, be my guest. I'm with you on that.
This ain't rocket surgery.
War is always economically-driven. It always has been, and always will be.
The pride, hubris, and misguided hate that you speak of are merely tools that are used by those in power to trick fools into dying in distant lands.
F-15
Take off every 'sig' !!
What they have volunteered to do.
While I am also uncomfortable with singling out the individuals who actually push the buttons which cause death, at some point we have to remember that the same "volunteer" military that has given the sons and daughters of wealth and privilege the ability to avoid being put in harm's way has also created a "warrior class" of people who for one reason or another, have chosen to participate in what are often the ugliest sanctioned acts that our society perpetrates, necessary or not.
It was the draft that created generations of Americans who each (except for the Dick Cheney's of the world, who will always find a way to get out of it somehow) have a direct connection to the defense of the country. It makes wars harder to start, when everyone is involved in a direct, physical way. The notion of a "professional" military class is in conflict with the beliefs of every single Founding Father, nearly all of whom believed that the US must never have a standing army, and that the kind of international adventurism which has defined all of our military actions since WWII should be avoided at all costs.
While it makes me uncomfortable to connect the faces of young American men and women with the sort of remote-control violence that much of our "wars" have become, it also makes me uncomfortable to say that those young men and women somehow had no moral involvement at all.
It's ugly business and I believe compulsory national service, like that of Israel or some European countries, is preferable to having professional soldiers who get "bonuses" for joining up and then get to wash their hands when innocents are killed.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You do have a point. I guess I'm worried about the veterans of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars experiencing the same demonization that happened to Vietnam vets. Speaking as someone who was actively involved in the anti-war movement of the Sixties and Seventies, that's the single aspect of the entire endeavor I'm not proud of.
You're right that they volunteered, but they did it either out of a sense of patriotism--possibly misplaced patriotism, but patriotism none the less--or economic necessity. I know a number of young people who joined up because they had no other prospects. BTW, I agree that some sort of compulsory national service is called for, but only if there's an option for non-military service allowed.
As far as young American men and women having no moral involvement, that's a tough call. The thing is, there's a reason beyond mere physical strength and endurance that compels the military to chose young people and that's the fact that human brains aren't fully developed until about age 25. Young people haven't yet acquired either the life experience or synapses to make wise judgements on fine points of morality. That's why young people do the dumb stuff they do, and why they deserve at least a little bit of slack in this case.
This ain't rocket surgery.
First-world countries don't go to war because of an economic factor, never have, and the burden of proof is on you to back your ignorant comment up.
9/11 involved 17 Saudi Arabian hijackers. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by an Islamic leader. Saudi Arabia has a terrible human rights record, doesn't allow non-muslims to testify in court, and allows young girls to be raped by old men through arranged marriages. Hardly a democratic paradise. So, why did we decide to invade Iraq? First, they said it was revenge for working with Al Qaeda, which is pure bullshit. Then it was WMD, which is also pure bullshit. Now it's to spread freedom and democracy, which yet again pure bullshit, otherwise we would have invaded Saudia Arabia for reasons one and three.
Short answer: Saudi Arabia plays ball, does what we tell them, and Saddam Hussein did not. Iraq also happens to sit on unexploited oil resources. Consider the headline, "West Sees Glittering Prizes Ahead in Giant Oilfields," printed in the London Times in 2002. That pretty much says it all.
If you like, I can go back through the history of just the United States for our wars, fought either for power or economic reasons. We invaded many Latin American countries because they kicked out US corporations and tried to reaffirm ownership of their own resources. We overthrew the democratic government of Iran in 1953 in Operation AJAX to restore British and American access to their resources, mostly oil. We invaded the Philippines after they refused our attempt to annex them in 1898 after the war with Spain, which also involved Cuba.
We have denied the right of nations to self rule for hundreds of years, beginning with the Native Americans, and even as I type, we are denying the rights of Iraqis and Afghanis the right to determine their own future. Economically, we strive to destroy local economies in order to enrich our own, from opening up agriculture markets in Mexico to put millions of poor farmers out of work, or opening up "free trade zones" to allow manufacturers to create something akin to a slave labor camp to push up their profit margins, and ship local jobs overseas.
First world countries are usually first world countries because they have raped and pillaged the third world for labor and resources. This was true for the British Empire, where the sun never set, and the Irish said because God would never trust the English in the dark. We are the new empire. We have over 750 military bases around the world trying to maintain our empire. You, just like many other Americans, are simply in denial about it.
So because one group of people are killing Iraqi^WAfghanistani civilians, then that makes it OK for another group, e.g. the US military, to do so? Even better, if one group kills civilians then that makes it OK for the US military to kill more of them in order to protect and bring peace to them?
That's some of the most ridiculous logic I've yet read from you, in all your years of posting your daft war-apologia comments on K5 and here.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
How good do you have to be to shoot down rusty Soviet cast-offs and bomb weddings? The US air-force is probably the safest job in military history.
It's safe because we are that good. Let me give you a little perspective on what it takes to get into a fighter cockpit these days. I'll keep it simple and give you my own personal story of getting there. My ROTC class started with 80. Of that, only 15 graduated and became officers in the Air Force (19%). Of those 15, 4 of us received pilot slots (26%). At initial flight screening, 16/20 graduated and were able to go to Undergraduate Pilot Training (80%). At pilot training, 11/14 students in my flight made it through primary training (79%). 1 of those 11, me, was selected for T-38s (Fighter/Bomber track) (9%). And in my T-38 class of 6 people, we might see 2 fighters (more likely 1) (17%).
So through my own personal path, 5/1000 people who try, will make it into a fighter cockpit.
That's how good you have to be.