I'm fascinated by the way in which technological change is affecting modern warfare. By and large my research has focused on changes at 'the pointy end'. So, for instance, I've been writing a lot about the Revolution in Military Affairs and its derivative concepts Network-Centric Warfare and Information Warfare. But I'm more and more interested these days not just in how we fight wars but how we conceptualize them societally, which ultimately feeds back into the way we fight and vice versa. In other words, I'm thinking a little less about changes at the pointy end of the spear and a little more about how the spear as a whole is changing. Specifically, I'm researching two things which are a direct outgrowth of the IT revolution.
The first is the phenomenon of milblogging, ie a blog about war like this one, but written by a soldier in the field as opposed to an academic in a comfy London office. I think the impact of milblogging is significant in several respects. For one thing it makes it all the more difficult for theatre commanders to establish and control a narrative of the conflict. There's been a lot of discussion over the years about the impact of the media on warfare, but we are only slowly waking up to the fact that it is now conceivable for soldiers to simply 'cut out the middle man' and report directlly their experience through the medium of a blog. Indeed this is already somewhat the case, as you can see in this article by uber-milblogger Michael Yon in which he points out that there are just 7 embedded reporters in Iraq right now. I find that surprisingly low. We're not just talking about text either, soldiers post videos and photos. There's a vast and growing genre of such 'tribute' videos as this one, almost always set to Heavy Metal tracks it seems, army humour like this British minor classic, as well gun camera footage such as this (warning: graphic), over on YouTube . Most is pretty tame illustrative of the long recognized fact that 99% of the experience of war is boredom--sitting around waiting; some of it is pretty dreadful (link is to an article).
So what's new about any of this? Well, nothing and a lot, depending on your viewpoint. Dreadful things have always happened in war. Cameras small enough to fit in a soldier's pocket have been around for years. What's different is that in the Nokia Age images which in the old days might have ended up in a shoebox in the attic are now shared and infinitely reproduced digitally over the Internet. 'Warfare', wrote Andrew Marr writing after the publication of stories based on photos--fake as it turned out--about abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British troops 'has always depended on a rampart of silence, a wall of willed incomprehension, between civilians at home and those killing. In a small way, the arrival of digital photographs has broken through that wall.' We're beginning to see how this changes things. I suspect, among other things, a main effect we are seeing is maintaining political will. We already, according to some, suffer from a societal attention deficit disorder. This would seem to be a complicating factor.
The second, and related, thing which strikes me as potentially quite significant is the increasing sophistication of video games. There's a very practical military dimension to this: games are an increasingly invaluable training aid. But there's a nother dimension: computer games like 'America's Army' or, somewhat less so, XBox's 'Full Spectrum Warrior', play a role in society akin to the World War 2 Frank Capra series of films 'Why we Fight'. I wouldn't want to overstretch the argument here but at least in some respects there is an apparent convergence between war and video games. James Der Derian's Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment covers some of this ground, but is rather flawed . He's a good writer, for a post-modernist, but not terribly convincing on operational military matters . Ed Halter's From Sun Tzu to XBox: War and Video Games, is better though it's appeal is possibly greater to gamers than soldiers. But this US Army video about the Future Combat System is a nice illustration of the point. I wonder if army recruiters ask applicants if they play a lot of video games and if they do whether that's considered a good thing. I suspect it would. I read somewhere (can't remember) that soldiers who had played a lot of first person shooter games were ideal for operating the remote weapons on armoured humvees. They were less likely to get disoriented and more confortable with the constant scanning necessary for useful observation through a narrow field of view.
What's really interesting, however, is not the tactical shoot 'em up games but games such as the one described in thsi article which are more about real-world challenges involving moral complexity, problem solving and cultural understanding. I suspect that this sort of thing is more valuable in the long run. Actually, I think I'd like too do something like thsi in our programme!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The soldier can work directly on the journalist/blogger also. There's a long, anonymous, evidently genuine, and very articulate essay at http://tinyurl.com/y4t7f8 where James Taranto uses a sergeant in the field to make some of his arguments for him. (Taranto is an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, so the sergeant has a direct input into the thinking of one of the two or three most important American newspapers.)
Really disturbing video footage of (I presume) Apache engaging insurgents. The final engagement is a lethal strike on an injured combatant - which ought not really happen under the Geneva Conventions. But this footage does get one thinking about the operational challenges of applying the LOAC. On balance, I think the Apache had no choice but to kill the injured insurgent (indeed, arguably, the Apache had no way of knowing that the insurgent was actually injured). Difficult situation; very difficult call. That's combat for you I guess.
The Apache footage is a little disturbing. But it's illustrative of a couple of things I think are significant. First, that it's out there at all. It's clearly not the case that the US Army released the footage. Basically someone who was otherwise authorized to have access to this material thuoght 'cool, I'll zip that up as an MPEG and send it to my buddy X'. Next thing you know, it's everywhere. There's a tension here. On the one hand you've got an overwhelming necessity to control the narrative of conflict which, inter alia, involves controlling the images which are coming out of it. On the other hand you've got an emerging form of warfare where cameras are increasingly ubiquitous, ultimately right down to the weapon sights on rifles.
We're going to see a lot more of this sort of thing in future. I supect that our armed forces arre still locked in the mode of controlling this outflow into the 'infosphere' and it's not working. They've got to think of this more in the way you think of weather which throws at you conditions which have to be endured and exploited. Frankly I think the insurgents are way ahead of the game right now. They're much savvier in the use of media to charge up their base.
The second thing is what Theo points to in talking about the last strike on an apparently wounded insurgent. The thing about this sort of footage is the illusion it gives you of knowing what is going on. The specific operational challlenges, as Theo puts it, or context, of what is happening is missing. The viewer must supply that context himself, which is why these things are so polarizing. They tend to deepen existing preconceptions. Perhaps a better example of this is the footage from 2nd Falllujah where a Marine corporal shoots a wounded insurgent in the head. Was it justified or not? Even the cameraman couldn't decide. The inquiry on the event concluded recently that it was.
Anthony notes that the discussion is more disturbing than the scene itself. The best example of this recently was the footage of British Army troops beating the crap out of two Iraqi rioters behind a wall. What you see is bad enough--though I've seen as much or worse on the High St on a saturrday night. What's truly awful about it is the commentary by the guy filming it which can best be described as something akin to the voice track of a porn film. The guy is clearly enjoying the show. I won't link to it.
Zipped files are indeed giving us windows into war without the perspective of combatants, let alone the operational and strategic context. And hence they can acquire a life of their own. I agree with David: from an academic point of view, there is some fascinating research to be done here (hopefully we'll get the money to do it, eh David!). From an operational point of view, it can create challenges for commanders seeking to control the narrative. And this is so important now, with these 'liberal wars.'
I'm sure there is more disturbing footage out there. I saw an air strike on a group of people in Fallujah. The assumption on the part of the air controller was that these were insurgents. But they just looked like ants - who could tell. There were walking down the middle of the street in a closely-knit gorup. If they were insurgents, they were really, really dumb. Then POW - the street and people disappear in a massive explosion!
These videos demonstrate for me the difficultly in applying the LOAC (a subject which interests me intensely). I don't think there is a straightforward answer, ever. It is for military courts to decide, when necessary, if there has been a breach of LOAC.
As for the 'fuck'em' attitude Anthony alludes to. Well the reality is that this attitude is understandable in frontline service personnel that are charged with killing combatants in the course of their duties. The really difficult thing is to foster this killer spirit whilst also developing what the British called 'judgement shooting' - the skill to know when to hold fire (even when under fire!).
Wanted to make a couple comments in this discussion thread. First is on the repugnance of the “Woooooh-hoooo!” sort of attitude of those doing the killing. It would seem that the callous excitement at the taking of life is disgusting and counter to all civilized sensibilities. And it is, just as war itself is. The reality is that soldiers and marines are trained to become killers. Combat is and has always been a matter of survival. A kill or be killed situation. Combatants cannot afford to be burdened by the civilized sensibilities that may cause them to hesitate during combat. Military training focuses on removing some of these natural barriers through desensitization and the development of a killer mentality. In the context of combat, desensitization and dehumanization of the enemy can be life-preserving assets. Like war itself this is a harsh reality but a necessary one, if you want to achieve your objectives with minimal loss of life. War is fundamentally about killing. Whoever does it best survives. Incidentally, a former US Army Lt Col turned academic, Dave Grossman, wrote a book called “On Killing” which discusses much of this.
That is not to say that a state should create anything less than a professional, able to exercise distinction and control in the application of violence. This, not coincidentally, is also a fundamental part of military basic and recurring training.
Related to this and David’s original post on Virtual War is the US Army’s development of combat simulation “games”. The design includes some of the gore you might see on the battlefield. The idea being that if you see this stuff in a virtual world it won’t make you hesitate in the real one, which would potentially result in your death or your comrades‘.
Of course, there are some seriously troubling issues that arise. You are in effect making someone less sensitive to the value of human life, which can have consequences when it comes time to re-integrate into society.
The second comment is regarding Theo’s mention of an air strike on a group of insurgents in Fallujah and the ability to be reasonably sure you are striking a lawful target. When coordinating a strike air controllers often use more than one source of information to verify. While we may just be watching a video posted on the internet the actual JTAC was likely using the video in conjunction with another source of info. The last thing anyone wants to do is to mistakenly kill innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Post a Comment