Military Taps Social Networking To Hunt Insurgents

Hugh Pickens writes "The New York Times has an interesting article about the thousands of analysts based in the United States for the Central Intelligence Agency and the US military who are showing how the Facebook generation's skills are being exploited — and paying dividends — in America's wars. Analysts monitor enemy communications and scan still images from drones in Afghanistan, then log the information into chatrooms, carrying on a running dialogue with drone crews and commanders and intelligence specialists in the field, who receive the information on computers and then radio the most urgent bits to troops on patrol. Marine intelligence officers say that during an offensive in February, the analysts managed to stay a step ahead of the advance, sending alerts about 300 or so possible roadside bombs, paving the way for soldiers to roll into Marja in southern Afghanistan with minimal casualties. 'To be that tapped into the tactical fight from 7,000 to 8,000 miles away was pretty much unheard of before,' said Gunnery Sgt. Sean N. Smothers, a Marine who stationed as a liaison to the analysts. New analysts, who were practically weaned on computers and interactive video games, have been crucial to hunting insurgents and saving American lives in Afghanistan. The Air Force, which has 4,000 analysts, is hiring 2,100 more. For the most part, the networking has been so productive that senior commanders are sidestepping some of the traditional military hierarchy and giving the analysts leeway in deciding how to use some spy planes."

Comments

I'm sure this won't be used for political gain

[jsepeta]

or to help some future government spy on it's own citizens. oh wait, that's exactly what the FUCK they're doing.

Old tools.

[FatSean]

All of the features described in this article were available long before the arise of 'social networking' and 'web2.0'. You just needed a dedicated application. Smells like someone's trying to pimp their war.

Let's summarize the summary a bit

[Minwee]

"People working together share information by talking to one another. Productivity rises. Film at 11."

It's great that they are able to use words to communicate, but this isn't exactly a new concept.

Re:Let's summarize the summary a bit

[radtea]

Productivity rises.

Err... not quite. "Destructivity rises," rather.

Henry Ford once said if you'd asked his customers what they'd wanted before he started building cars they'd have told him "a faster horse."

This is the military or geo-political equivalent of a faster horse.

Rather than approaching the enemy in new and interesting ways, the same old stupid and destructive deadweight loss tactics are being applied: blowing people up and killing them. To anyone who cares about economics, this is idiotic. These people are useful, capable and potentially produtive members of the human community. Rather than intelligently find ways to exploit that, we spend billions of dollars we can't really afford to find more and more sophisticated ways to blow them up.

If blowing things up in Afghanistan solved the Afghan problem, there wouldn't be an Afghan problem anymore. It didn't work for the British, it didn't work for the Russians, and not it's not working for NATO.

Maybe it's time we started thinking about using new technology in ways that are actually likely to bring about the desired end--which is peace and prosperity (right?--rather than just stupidly and unimaginately pursuing the dead-end dream of a faster horse.

Re:I Don't See the Connection Here

[hedwards]

You're assuming that the analysis is accurate. Or are you one of those people that still believes that there are WMDs that haven't been found in Iraq and that Saddam was involved with al Qaeda?

Re:FaceBook Games

[AHuxley]

FarmVille with opium crops?
US Army - "We Tolerate The Cultivation Of Opium Poppies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fww_b1YVdco

Re:Drone Crews

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be pointed out though, that when it comes to wars, the vast majority of the judgement over the methods people use depends on your moral assessment of those who take part.

E.g. a group of neo-nazis with assault rifles are going to raid a hospital in a predominately black area. A peace activist smuggles in an explosive device hidden in a 2l coke bottle. They are celebrated as intelligent and brave heroes.

On the other hand - US troops hiding explosives and poison in food supplies taken to Taliban HQ? Boo! Hiss!

Although people like to pretend otherwise, even to themselves, it _is_ really all about the moral assessment of those who take part. In this case, one possible explanation is, if it's somehow felt that the Taliban "has a potentially valid case", then using drone attacks "denies them the right to fight for their case".

Re:FaceBook Games

[foobsr]

US Army - "We Tolerate The Cultivation Of Opium Poppies"

Yes, what a coincidence.

CC.