Distant, Detached, Deceptive

[Tom Odom]

This article in Esquire is interesting and informative. It is also very much an icon for the disconnect in American thinking regarding war, warfare, and the very real fight on the ground in Afghanistan. There is the appeal of a sterile, almost absurdly clean fight from a console in the United States; no sweat in your eyes or down your back from body armor. No stench of raw sewage, blood, or decayed flesh, the greatest irritant perhaps a pesky fly on the display (you don't need to worry about where or what it might have just crawled on). It is at once obviously deceptive but nonetheless appealing, especially to those who seek seduction...

Tom

We've Seen the Future, and It's Unmanned

October 14, 2009, 8:30 AM
By Brian Mockenhaupt

Every so often in history, something profound happens that changes warfare forever. Next year, for the first time ever, the Pentagon will buy more unmanned aircraft than manned, line-item proof that we are in a new age of fighting machines, in which war will be ever more abstract, ever more distant, and ruthlessly efficient.


The war begins each day on the long drive into the desert, just past the Super Buffet and the Home Depot and the Petco, and the swath of look-alike houses that cling to the city's edge, along the forty miles of the strangest daily commute in America. Air Force Staff Sergeant Charles Anderson plucks his wristwatch from the cupholder and crosses into the war zone. He wears the watch only at work, and the ritual shifts his thoughts away from the everyday, which lately has been occupied by wedding plans and house hunting.

[carl]

Airmen have been selling this since the 20's. War made clean and easy. This latest installment has the added appeal of computer technology and remote control. For many people it is the answer to an age old dream. For others it is too good to be true and will lead us astray. I think the historical record is on the side of the skeptics. But, like you said, a lot of people want to be seduced.

[Bob's World]

We are the ultimate asymmetric warriors.

Something I find a bit ironic as I sit among senior DoD leadership, agonizing and wrist-wringing over some latest "asymmetric" capability developed by some competitor as if it was some dirty, underhanded approach to warfare as we choose to define it.

America has always been on the leading edge of asymmetry. Always looking for some new angle in terms of tactics, technology or firepower to gain an advantage or reduce the human risk to warfare.

The ultimate American Asymmetric warrior was Ike. Why compete head to head with the massive Soviet Army in Europe when we could build a much cheaper, cleaner, less manpower dependent Air Force, equipped with the fastest planes, the most accurate missiles, and the most powerful nuclear weapons?

So, as we agonize over the latest tricks the Chinese, quite wisely, and so American-like, pull out of their silk sleeves; we would do well to remember that while this is a trick the old dog already knew, it is also one the we reminded them of the effectiveness of it in our application.

Yes, we are Americans, and we are asymmetric warriors.

The cautionary tale is, that we do not fall too in love with, or become too reliant on this emerging bit of asymmetry as we did with our infatuation with air power in the 40s and 50s. God favors the side with the greatest control of the air, but it will always be a supporting arm to that dirty, scared, hungry, tired soldier/marine, sweating/freezing his ass of far below on some contested piece of ground.

[carl]

I forgot one thing. It is detail that is forgotten when speaking of the wonders of drones. I remember reading that in Rhodesia and Vietnam, scout pilots in light fixed wing airplanes could see and detect quite small detail, footprints even. Quite amazing things once they got the hang of it. I wonder if the drones will ever get that good, for that tiny field of view that they have seems like a big limitation.

[Tom Odom]

Something I find a bit ironic as I sit among senior DoD leadership, agonizing and wrist-wringing over some latest "asymmetric" capability developed by some competitor as if it was some dirty, underhanded approach to warfare as we choose to define it.

Amen brother. It is life saving when we do it; ignoble on the part of our enemies when we face it.

Tom

[Bob's World]

I forgot one thing. It is detail that is forgotten when speaking of the wonders of drones. I remember reading that in Rhodesia and Vietnam, scout pilots in light fixed wing airplanes could see and detect quite small detail, footprints even. Quite amazing things once they got the hang of it. I wonder if the drones will ever get that good, for that tiny field of view that they have seems like a big limitation.

When I left active duty back in '92 and joined the Oregon National Guard, I had the pleasure to get to know and work with Colonel Larry Brown. When you see a guy with 3 Silver Stars and 4 Distinguished Flying Crosses on his chest, he stands out in a crowd. When you find out he earned them in three tours of flying scout helicopters with the Air Cav in 'Nam, and was shot down at least 6 times, you know he earned them.

As a 19 year-old warrant officer on his first tour, he earned the nickname "Super Scout" from his commander one day, when in the pursuit of a fleeing band of the enemy, he hovered low over a patch of muddy trail covered in a jumble of fresh footprints. Applying skills he had devloped as a kid (ok, he was still a kid) growing up in Oregon, he created a mental 6' box on the trail, counted the number of footprints and divided by two. He reported back the location, direction and number of enemy, and the Blues were put in place to interdict the enemy. When asked how he knew the number and if he had seen the enemy he explained what he had seen, and why he was pretty sure of their number. Lets just say his commander was skeptical.

A while later the enemy ran into a well laid ambush based upon Larry's intel; and the body count matched his projection exactly. From that point forward he was, deservedly, Super Scout.

I doubt we will grow any future Super Scouts flying UAVs, but then again, no one understands better than Larry just what a refugee from the laws of averages he is. We lost a hell of a lot of fine young men flying those missions, and if flying them from Nellis isn't quite as romantic or effective, well so be it.

Here's to Larry, I doubt he'd begrudge these kids a bit, and would probably love to get his hands on their controls. Come to think of it, we probably need to be reaching out to guys like Larry to do just that.

[Entropy]

Good article Tom, thanks for sharing. I work in the predator community now and think the article is accurate.

As for the seduction part, I'm not so sure about that. For me, working on the PED side of predator ops (the intel processing, exploitation and dissemination), the distance from the battlefield is a bit strange and not at all seductive. I found the mental challenge of changing from an operational, wartime mentality to a civilian, peacetime mentality every 12 hours to be more difficult than I imaged. It's a bit surreal to come home after many hours following and killing some insurgents who killed some of our guys, to deal with the typical family and life issues we all face in the civilian world. Personally, I don't really like it and if it were up to me I would prefer to deploy. Better, IMO, to have my head totally in an operational mindset for a set period of time than all this switching back-and-forth. I'm still a part-timer though, so I can't complain, but I can see the burnout in people who've been doing this for two years straight.

Beyond that, UAV's are certainly an asymmetric advantage for us, one we need to further exploit. There are still a lot of problems and challenges to overcome since pretty much everything in the community is constantly evolving but slowly we're getting there.

[Tom Odom]

Entropy

No I would not expect you to be seduced at all. And I know you are not because of what you say on here. The seduction part in my view is largely those outside the community of the knowledgeable who see an opportunity for a suddenly clean version of war.

I can also understand the mental shift and the article does a pretty good job of portraying that. I would agree that in the interest of mindset alone, deployed or at least forward-based would ease some of that.

Tom

[slapout9]

Nice article. The pilots are right to be concerned about being targeted. The more this Technology is used for Long term operations with no Strategic Outcome the more it will become vulnerable to a series of Counter Measures (probably Low Tech ones). One of which will be counter targeting and they have no concerns whatsoever about civilian casualties. And I really don;t think it is much of a problem to cross our borders either.....but no worries we have that fantastic Homeland Security Department Entropy you should keep your guard up!

[Entropy]

Tom,

Thanks for your response. I do get what your saying now and I do think senior policymakers and military leaders will see the use of UAV's as a "riskless" option. It's a role air power has often been asked to fill and the increasing use of UAV's is only going to further that. So I think you are right about the "seduction" part and that our leaders will likely be tempted to try to achieve their goals through the use of "safe" options like UAV's.

[Entropy]

Nice article. The pilots are right to be concerned about being targeted. The more this Technology is used for Long term operations with no Strategic Outcome the more it will become vulnerable to a series of Counter Measures (probably Low Tech ones). One of which will be counter targeting and they have no concerns whatsoever about civilian casualties. And I really don;t think it is much of a problem to cross our borders either.....but no worries we have that fantastic Homeland Security Department Entropy you should keep your guard up!

Slap,

You are certainly correct. While remote UAV ops bring a lot of flexibility and advantages, they also introduce a lot of vulnerabilities. The article talked about "lost link" and that is something that continues to be problem. It's one reason why I don't see unmanned fighters coming anytime soon - the technology is not nearly reliable and robust enough for that.

On the personnel side, it is pretty scary what is available. I did a little experiment a couple of years ago. I took my name, and paid about $25 to one of those online background check websites to pull up information on me. With just a name and that small amount of money, I was astonished at the amount of information available. Basically my entire credit history, my previous six addresses, my current address, my creditors and bank, etc. For a bit more money, even more detailed information is available and you can even hire them to do research of local records. If you take my name and look it up on the vets databases that are available, you can find out that I was in the Navy, my separation rank and my MOS - Intelligence. It's all kind of scary. I have a friend that spent a few years doing open source intel for SOCCOM and it's pretty amazing the information that's available to someone with the will, some time, and a bit of skill.

That's the reason I stay pseudonymous online, even here. I don't want my name associated with intelligence and I don't want foreign governments or hostile organizations to develop a dossier on me, not to mention internet trolls.