Losing the War Data For Iraq and Afghanistan

cervesaebraciator writes with an excerpt from an analysis of a kind we're likely to see more of as ubiquitous sensors and cheap storage continue to proliferate: "'The Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns are unique in that they were the first wars to be documented electronically. The use of computers to track stabilization efforts produced enormous datasets in which important indicators were tracked, including daily electricity-production rates, georeferenced insurgent attacks, factory employment numbers, military spending on locally sourced goods and services and public opinion. [...] Army Secretary John McHugh recently admitted to members of Congress that thousands of records from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are missing. [...] The problem is that much of the existing data were collected in an ad hoc manner that reflects the lack of planning for stability operations following both invasions. While certain data types were methodically maintained, others were kept by single individuals in more arbitrary ways—in some cases, on a single computer's hard drive, in a personal computer or within an e-mail account. As flash drives are lost, computers reformatted, files erased, and human and magnetic memory degrades, various data types have been and will continue to be destroyed." With apologies to Santayana, those who do not backup data sets of the past are condemned to repeat them."

Comments

On the shoulders of giants

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that much of the existing data were collected in an ad hoc manner that reflects the lack of planning for stability operations following both invasions.

With each generation the prior generation of technology often looks ad hoc or patched together. Given that these operations happened over a decade ago it's no surprise that the data was handled poorly by today's standards.

Re:On the shoulders of giants

[clodney]

The problem is that much of the existing data were collected in an ad hoc manner that reflects the lack of planning for stability operations following both invasions.

With each generation the prior generation of technology often looks ad hoc or patched together. Given that these operations happened over a decade ago it's no surprise that the data was handled poorly by today's standards.

I find it hard to believe that anybody is the least surprised by this. Look around your organization. Surely there is some guy down the hall who has taken it upon himself to keep track of something that is not required but that makes his job easier or piques his interest. After awhile people start to realize that he has a list of which customer has been sent which update, something which for some reason is not tracked in the CRM, but is sometimes very useful to have. He faithfully maintains the list for several years, until he moves to a different job. Turns out his successor does not find the information as useful, so stops collecting it. 2 years later it is hopelessly out of date and it gets deleted.

There were *millions* of people involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That kind of semi-official record keeping had to have happened thousands of times. Suppose I work for a battalion of engineers doing electrical grid repairs. The CO has to make a report to Brigade every month on various metrics. Some staffer compiles the info every month for a Powerpoint. After the tour ends and the CO is no longer reporting to Brigade every month, why would I continue to maintain the data? Who is going to come asking for it? So I delete it. Now repeat that for thousands of records.

Don't panic

[ebonum]

We can start another war and re-build the data set.

Ask the NSA

[bengoerz]

I hear those guys have a copy of everything.

Re:How convenient

[drinkypoo]

" The problem is that much of the existing data were collected in an ad hoc manner that reflects the lack of planning for stability operations following both invasions. " bureau-speech for "We didn't plan well enough, so no one can be blamed."

Uh no. It's bureau-speech for "we planned well, so that no one can be blamed". They can lose any data they like as long as they claim that this is standard, and never get in trouble for burying any kind of evidence. Next to be lost: The NSA's records of who they've been spying upon.

Wasn't a bug: it was a feature

[smittyoneeach]

The units brought their own network gear and staff, and it all departed at each RIP/TOA.
Much harder to track down and prosecute anyone there for much of anything, for reasons of justice, or to slake our emerging lust for kangaroo courts.

Re:The records were supposed to be lost

[Sparticus789]

The CM video is a perfect example of playing Armchair General. The objects being carried by the "civilians" had the same profile as RPGs. Only from post-engagement analysis can you tell what they are. The video is a grainy night-vision camera from miles away. Nor can you identify the "children" in the video, they are literally small white blobs on the screen. If you watch the video, without preconceived notions, you can easily identify that it was legitimate engagement.

According to the Rules of Engagement from the 2006-2007 time frame, if any person from a crowd of group of people commit a hostile act or show hostile intent, the entire group is displaying hostile acts or hostile intent. In that crowd which was shot by the Apache, one person in the group was displaying hostile intent (carrying an RPG, which has so legitimate self-defense purpose) so therefore, can be engaged. If it was an AK-47, they would not have been able to engage. I know this because a farmer across from my guard tower would carry his AK everywhere and we were specifically told that carrying an AK was not hostile intent. If it was a PKM (machine gun), the group would also have been displaying hostile intent. Another group of people showed up and were in the field of fire. Therefore, they become part of that group and are showing hostile intent.

When you stop sipping on your latte's and get a dose of reality, the video is a legit engagement. Sorry for the innocent lives lost, but that is part of war. If you do not want to run that risk, then you should run away when you hear 30mm machine gun rounds land in your area, not drive towards the weapon fire.