Article

2007-11-29 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-11-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Apples, meet oranges.

Posted by Spike Uniter 2007-11-29 00:55|| 2007-11-29 00:55|| Front Page Top

#2 People should run software, not software running people!

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2007-11-29 06:53|| 2007-11-29 06:53|| Front Page Top

#3 The Wired article misses a few points.

The US military is only in the early stages of deploying the technologies that are necessary for real netcentric operations. Some prototype devices have been rushed to theater, including the Blue Force Tracker and later more elements of the FBCB2 command and control system. But many of the key elements that support Cerebrowski's vision are not in place yet.

One reason Rumsfeld was hesitant about committing a lot of troops to Iraq was his understanding that a) if it was *our* toppling of Saddam, the Iraqis would not step up to create a functioning government and b) the cost of such a war would sidetrack important investments in net centricity that we need to deal with other threats.

Like China. Like what is evolving in Latin America. Like our own borders.

Giving Iraqis direct access to our C2 data is a losing proposition IMO. What *could* be done is to selectively peel off more info. But even then, until the Shia remove their own militia supporting commanders, it's an iffy move.

No doubt the Pentagon is filled with senior officers who are less than net aware. It drove Rummy nuts. It's driving mid-level officers nuts too. (Junior officers are always driven nuts by their superiors so that doesn't count.)

They've made stupid decisions re: the use of the media (old and new) to deal with this enemy. But they're learning - witness Petraeus. Witness placing soldiers to live with Iraqis, with permission.

Actually, even before Petraeus you had Rumsfeld reaching past dozens of Big Army guys waiting for their 4th star to tap a *retired spec ops guy* (Schoomaker) for Army chief of staff. Ruffled a huge number of feathers - nearly all of whom missed the point about net centricity, which is why he passed them over.

If you want to read more about what's really going on re: transformation, check out Dave Alberts' books available for free at the Command and Control Research Program. Start with Netcentric Warfare, then Power to the Edge and then Understanding Command and Control. Those, plus the book by Wentz on C4ISR lessons learned in Kosovo, give a much broader view of net centric issues.

Oh - about those social networks? Old story. We found Saddam by mapping his network and staking out key nodes. It's a foreign culture so it took us a little while to spread this to other ops. Biggest hindrance wasn't tech vs social, it was the frigging ROE under Sanchez from what I've heard.

A final issue: real net centricity will involve at least 4 levels of networks: physical/infrastructure (including communications), data (linked applications in DoD's evolving Global Information Grid), cognitive (sensemaking on the battlefield and at higher hqtrs) and social. Everyone looks at the lowest tech elements and the social nets because they're easiest to see from the outside. But the data is a key enabler and the cognitive is where it all comes home.

Read Alberts to see what's really involved and to understand why we're only at the beginning of this transformation.

And if you want to dig really deeply, track the emerging discipline of Network Science.

Posted by lotp 2007-11-29 08:20|| 2007-11-29 08:20|| Front Page Top

#4 Just don't name your teddy bear Mohammed or you'll be in a world of hurt.

Posted by Seafarious 2007-11-29 10:06|| 2007-11-29 10:06|| Front Page Top

#5 A comment on the article at Wired from Thomas P. M. Barnett -
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/11/wireds_subpar_iraq_analysis.html

Posted by Glolurong Jones1696">Glolurong Jones1696 2007-11-29 12:43|| 2007-11-29 12:43|| Front Page Top

#6 Debbie Schlussel reports that the American Anthropological Association has its panties in a wad about the ethics of its members embedding in military units.

Here is an excerpt from their statement:

A]nthropologists may have responsibilities to their U.S. military units in war zones that conflict with their obligations to the persons they study or consult, specifically the obligation, stipulated in the AAA Code of Ethics, to do no harm to those they study. . . .
As members of the HTS [DS: Human Terrain System Project] teams, anthropologists provide information and counsel to U.S. military field commanders. This poses a risk that information provided by HTS anthropologists could be used to make decisions about identifying and selecting specific populations as targets of U.S. military operations either in the short or long term. Any such use of fieldwork-derived information would violate the stipulations in the AAA Code of Ethics that those studied not be harmed.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-11-29 12:59|| 2007-11-29 12:59|| Front Page Top

#7 USA Today reports:

The executive board of the anthropologists group has come out opposing the program; its statement notes in part that working as military contractors in a war zone "places a significant constraint" on anthropologists' ability to fulfill their ethical responsibility "to disclose who they are and what they are doing" and "to do no harm to those they study."

Anthropologist Montgomery McFate, a senior adviser to the project, holds that improved understanding of local customs will help avoid use of military force. "We're trying to help them understand other ways of interacting, such as negotiation and reconciliation," she says.

But anthropologist Roberto González of San Jose State University in California says academics could be viewed as gathering intelligence for the U.S. military. "If they get the reputation of being tools of the military, it puts all of us under a cloak of suspicion," he says. He has co-founded the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, which wants anthropologists to boycott such field work.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-11-29 13:03|| 2007-11-29 13:03|| Front Page Top

#8 Who is the Network of Concerned Anthroplogists?

No doubt it's a Soros/World Workers Party front group, like all the rest.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-11-29 13:06|| 2007-11-29 13:06|| Front Page Top

#9 When Anthropology Gets Ugly

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-11-29 13:10|| 2007-11-29 13:10|| Front Page Top

#10 re: Barnett's smackdown of the Wired article - LOL.

Posted by lotp 2007-11-29 19:53|| 2007-11-29 19:53|| Front Page Top

23:56 Barbara Skolaut
23:49 KBK
23:31 McZoid
23:21 jan from work
23:18 Rambler
23:14 crosspatch
23:07 swksvolFF
23:02 Zenster
23:02 swksvolFF
23:00 McZoid
22:46 Zenster
22:46 Pappy
22:27 Pappy
22:26 Zhang Fei
22:13 Pappy
22:03 twobyfour
22:02 Zenster
21:54 Zenster
21:53 Zhang Fei
21:51 Procopius2k
21:51 Nimble Spemble
21:47 JosephMendiola
21:47 g(r)omgoru
21:45 trailing wife