How Technology Failed in Iraq

synthespian writes "US troops in Iraq were supposed to have a clear superiority in the battlefield because of sensors and networking devices such as aircraft- and satellite-mounted motion sensors, heat detectors, as well as image and communications eavesdroppers. On April 3, 2003, the task to take over a key Euphrates River bridge about 30 kilometers southwest of Baghdad turned into a bloody hell as 'between 25 and 30 tanks, plus 70 to 80 armored personnel carriers, artillery, and between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers coming from three directions. This mass of firepower and soldiers attacked a U.S. force of 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles. (...) "'We got nothing until they slammed into us"''(...). Read more about this story and the troubles and challenges the US military is experiencing in networking troops from Technology Review."

Re:Weapons...

[mOoZik]

A war cannot be fought with nukes until everyone has one; otherwise, it won't be a war with two sides. And when everyone has one, no one side will attempt to use it in battle, because of mutual destruction, or the potential thereof. Thus, they would most likely resort to using conventional weapons.

Superiority....

[uarch]

"US troops in Iraq were supposed to have a clear superiority in the battlefield..." I think the someone's forgetting that we rolled over the entire country in about a week.

Re:Weapons...

[the_unknown_soldier]

mod parent down for a ridiculous mis-quoting of Albert Eintein. "I do not know with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."-Albert Einstein

Re:Weapons...

[goneutt]

I think you misquoted old Al.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein http://www.quotationspage.com/ [quotationspage.com]

It was really an observation that science was coming up with some really scary ideas in the realm of making things that go "BOOM"

Re: yep yep

[Black Parrot]

> The TR article does mention hours-long downloads and network outages for soldiers in the field, making it sound like our info-warfare is not yet ready for demo, let alone rollout.

I know a guy who works on Army technoprojects, and he says the bandwith problem was because of too much crap on the network, especially with endemic rank-pulling to grab bandwith for things that may have been useful, but weren't within the scope of what the system was designed for. By the time it got down to the guys on the sharp edge, all the water had already been siphoned out of the river.

Re:5000-10,000 Iraqis? WTF?

[bullitB]

If you'd RTFM, you might have noticed that the US troops essentially did roll right over them (zero fatal casualties against a multi-thousand man enemy force). ....which I think was the main point here. They were extremely luck they were fighting with better hardware, because their software was completely useless.

Re:Technology? TECHNOLOGY??

[rock_climbing_guy]

And of course, Kerry's own words let us know that back in 2003, he agreed with you. [weeklystandard.com]

Re:Technology doesn't fail...

[10101001 10101001]

Your counter-examples don't fit the form.

The form is: 'X (linking verb) not Y Z. Z Y Z.'

So,

Chicken doesn't taste like chicken. People taste like chicken.

There's no sensical direct conversion (beyond stating P is ~P; P is P), but here's one that uses a few of the components:

People don't taste like chicken. Chicken tastes like chicken.

Computers aren't made of silicon. People are made of silicon.

Computers aren't made out of silicon. Computers are made out of computers.

People don't make mistakes. People make mistakes.

People don't make mistakes. Mistakes make mistakes.

His example is "Technology doesn't fail [people]. People fail [people]." which fits the form. Your only real argument against that is to claim that the implied words aren't "people" but something else in which case you'd be right it fails the form.

Re:Technology? TECHNOLOGY??

[ozmanjusri]

Where have you been? Improved technology has allowed a political climate to make killing civilians more difficult.

You might need to ask yourself the same question.
About 50% of those who died in WW2 were civilian, up from 10% in WW1. In the US invasion of Panama in 1989 about 13 civilians were killed for every military death.

Iraq's ratio of civilian to miltary fatalities is currently running at about 33 to 1, and there is no reason to think that trend will not continue.

another view

[J. Random Luser]

while Googling refs from posts here I came across an Asian view [mindef.gov.sg] on the reliance of modern warfare on ancient experience...

Re:Superiority....

[GWTPict]

Oh, no argument there, on a conventional battlefield it all went the coalitions way. Pity it's not a conventional battlefield anymore.

Re:British soldiers don't wear helmets.

[horza]

I remember an interview with a British officer, where they explained why they were wearing berets instead of helmets. He said the moment they arrived they switched from helmets to berets to appear more human and 'with' rather than 'against' the local population. They received a bulletin where it was stated there was an increased risk to troops. They wore helmets for one day and the officer ordered them back into berets, despite the increase in risk to British lives, as they instantly perceived increased hostility from the locals. This kind of intelligence is worth its weight in gold.

Phillip.

Re:Technology? TECHNOLOGY??

[damgx]

While these numbers may be true, war has also changed with each one.

The battlefield has moved from trenches and country side to the city.

In ww1 & ww2 both sides were prepared for war, so civilians and military were not mixed as they are today.

Another point is this:

As a general rule, on a 'normal' battlefield you need to be 3 to 1 in order to win. (If the enemy has 10 men, you need 30 to win.)

In the city the rate is 10+ to 1. Soldiers know about this great risc, and this is why you shoot first, ask later.

And as we all know civilians live in the city, so it is no surprise that more civilians die in modern combats. They can't escape, and 'non regular' armys use them as cover.

The fact that everyone and his brother in Iraq owns a gun does not make things easier.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century.

[GWTPict]

Iraqis are Persians, not Arabs.

Re:Any truth in...

[MtViewGuy]

That would be true in the past, but this is 2004, mind you. Careful placement of electronics and careful insulation of wiring usually solves the problem of EMP.

Maybe YOU'D better reread that report

[beakburke]

Saddam (or members of his regieme most certainly hosted and met with high level AQ officials. What the report DOES say is that Saddam had no direct connections to the 9-11 attack in particular or to Osama himself. But he certainly did have some AQ connections.

Re:Seems like the need more a disconnected model

[Anonymous Coward]

The US military attempts as much as possible to avoid civilian casualties. They are not perfect, but that is their goal. Terrorists attempt to maxamize civilian casualties to inflict fear on a population. Whatever you think about the US in general, or our recent actions in specific, there IS a clear moral distinction between the US military and terrorists.

I don't think this moral distinction was very clear in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagazaki.

Re:The 'Arab Mind' is filled with learned behavoir

[Dirk van der Broek]

I think you should read more about Arab culture. Perhaps you've heard of a city called Cordoba from say 900 years ago or more. Yes currently Arab culture may appear to be a bit backwards, but 900 years ago, the shoe was on the other foot. It was the Moors in Spain that had libraries, streets (lit by lamps), valued education when London was little more than a village. It was the Arabs that preserved the culture of the Greeks and Romans, by preserving their art and literature. It was the Arab culture of Cordoba that helped to spark the Renaissance. You may be asking yourself, what the hell does this have to do with now, well maybe nothting. I just think that before you go calling a culture "losers" maybe you should know that your "Western" culture may not exist without them.

Re:Technology? TECHNOLOGY??

[mikapc]

I think a caveat should be made to your Roman Way point "don't destroy, rather modify (for example: don't change customs, religion, just add yours)". This was only the outcome Romans preferred when conquering new lands. If the locals didn't go along they had no problem exterminating the entire population which worked quite well. You mention the so-called incredible resistance of the Jews which is false at least insofar if you judge resistance by its success. The jews were completely and utterly crushed by the Roman nation where all the males were slaughtered and all females sold into slavery. I have no idea why you marked Roman rule over that area as a failure. I would agree that a big mistake was by the Romans in taking Germania which was mostly due to the incompetence of the varus who led 3 legions to their complete destruction in the teutoberg forest.

Re:British soldiers don't wear sunglasses.

[balster neb]

And this too [bbc.co.uk]. British soldiers act very differently, and it shows.

Oops. You fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Falkland Islands

Grenada

Panama

None of those military occupations lasted even a year. They were short-time, low-casualty occupations.

But if you don't include casualties in the invasion, the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII inflicted few casualties. (There were some guerilla fighting, but not of the magnitude we see in Iraq today.)

Those occupations also lasted many years, as opposed to the short/medium-lenght occupations of Iraq.

Falklands, Panama, Grenada: Low invader casualty invasion. Low casulaty occupation. Short time.

Germany and Japan: Very high invader casualty invasion. Low casualty occupation. Long time.

Iraq: Low invader casualty invasion. Medium allied casualty occupation. Medium time.

We invade Iraqi airspace and you claim it is their fault?

Uhm. WTC car bomb?

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uganda-Tanzania War: Do you have figures for this one? I only found this [medilinkz.org].

Denmark: True, Denmark gave up quickly when the capital was captured.

Norway:_When you say raids, maybe you also include the heavy fighting around Narvik by allied expeditionary forces, considered the first allied victory in the war? All right, we won't count those. But you're still wrong about German casualties: 1000 German sailors died in the sinking of the battleship Bl*cher [wikipedia.org] alone.