sacp81170a
Member
The threads we've had lately have been making me reevaluate military strategies in light of the "war" of information technology. Basically the analogy that comes to mind is the PC network vs. the "glass house" mainframe.
What we're seeing in the present Iraqi conflict is the direct result of being the most powerful military organization on the planet. There is essentially no force on the face of the planet capable of going head to head with the U.S. millitary on the battlefield with any hope of victory. So why are we finding an insurgency/terrorist army so difficult to deal with? I would submit that the insurgents are organized very much more like a network and that that very organization provides a resilience and self correcting capability that our "mainframe" type of military organization will find extremely hard to defeat.
If we keep in mind the analogy, the Cold War was a mainframe war with mainframe style weapons, i.e., tank divisions, strategic bombers, ICBM's, nuclear submarines, etc. The technology and organization became more important than the individual. In the current war, we have been unable to keep up with the level of innovation and self repair of a "network" of generally independent units. Take for example the problem of IED's.
Many of the vehicles in military convoys now carry a device called the Warlock intended to jam the signals used to detonate IED's. What happened after we spent a lot of money and effort to deploy this system? The IT's simply adapted by changing the way they set off the IED's to simpler, more effective systems. Pressure plates, sophisticated booby traps, multiple IED's, and different methods of initiating an ambush.
Understanding that any analogy is necessarily imperfect, what organizational changes might be necessary to combat a "network" based system with access to the same communications technology (the internet) that we use? Can our military successfully adapt, and what political changes will be necessary in order for us to meet this particular threat?
What we're seeing in the present Iraqi conflict is the direct result of being the most powerful military organization on the planet. There is essentially no force on the face of the planet capable of going head to head with the U.S. millitary on the battlefield with any hope of victory. So why are we finding an insurgency/terrorist army so difficult to deal with? I would submit that the insurgents are organized very much more like a network and that that very organization provides a resilience and self correcting capability that our "mainframe" type of military organization will find extremely hard to defeat.
If we keep in mind the analogy, the Cold War was a mainframe war with mainframe style weapons, i.e., tank divisions, strategic bombers, ICBM's, nuclear submarines, etc. The technology and organization became more important than the individual. In the current war, we have been unable to keep up with the level of innovation and self repair of a "network" of generally independent units. Take for example the problem of IED's.
Many of the vehicles in military convoys now carry a device called the Warlock intended to jam the signals used to detonate IED's. What happened after we spent a lot of money and effort to deploy this system? The IT's simply adapted by changing the way they set off the IED's to simpler, more effective systems. Pressure plates, sophisticated booby traps, multiple IED's, and different methods of initiating an ambush.
Understanding that any analogy is necessarily imperfect, what organizational changes might be necessary to combat a "network" based system with access to the same communications technology (the internet) that we use? Can our military successfully adapt, and what political changes will be necessary in order for us to meet this particular threat?