Can technology win the war in Iraq?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Remote controlled robots cannot substitute soldiers. Again, these could easily be tampered, and a sort of arms race could start to see who can waste the resources of the enemy faster: the insurgency with cheap roadside bombs or the U.S. with expensive technology. They can, and they do. It's saved more lives and offered missions to allow us to relocate our soldiers elsewhere. Infact, they've done wonders for us in combating roadside bombs. They are able to scope out a building without putting a soldier in harms way, and can do survailence more efficiently when guarding a area. And this is just the beginning, when SWORDS makes it's debut on the battlefield, the robots will be fighting back. The difference between them and the soldiers is that they can carry high powered weaponry fire full auto on a area and never have to worry about recoil throwing their aim off. On top of that, once one is alerted to a unidentfied person, the others in it's group can easily be alerted to exactly where this person is and respond and close in in no time. Don't underestimate technology Hugo, just understand that everything, and that includes ground troops, tanks, and anything else has limitations. The trick is using their strong points together, which the US does.

You make very good points, and I agree with what you say. And I will always be for sending a RC vehicle to detonate road side bombs rather than have human lives at risk.

However, they are not a substitute to soldiers, and we cannot afford it as a long term strategy.

Unless these robots are as cheap as road side bombs, going down this route will put is in a losing position. It boils down to money, if it costs them $5 to destroy equipment that costs $20--and I doubt a robot can be this cheap, but let's assume this for argument sake--$500 can destroy $2000 of U.S. equipment.

It is not sustainable. :)

Originally posted by Maharbbal Obviously the American public cares less about the money than about the losses, reduce significantly these losses and you'll win the war on the long run, keep them at 100+ a month and you gonna have to move out soon. I (a great armchair general) don't think technology can win the war but it can help it greatly

There is a growing number of people who are upset with the monetary cost of the war. Why? Because this war is making it impossible to properly fund any socially redeeming program in the U.S. The war debt is so huge, that just paying it off will take a long time.

And Bush decided to wage a war and drive up a huge debt just as the biggest population segment of the U.S. is about to retire. The reality is that a huge number of boomers will get ill or fired, will quickly go through their savings, and end up in poverty.

The only real solution to this will be the U.S. government bailing them out. We will end up having to do so.

And as we are walking into what may be the greatest social crisis of the U.S. since the Great Depression, the U.S. government is burning millions of dollars a minute in Iraq.

is not only political-cultural and religious strugle,without the military sucses none of them counts as important.The problem is the enemy,or rather the type of enemy,is a new enemy,thats the problem,a new enemy that the modern or even clasic armies have no experience in fighting,but there is a war and a enemy to fight there none the less.On the political-cultural and religious aspects the war in Iraq is all but won since the day the people of Iraq went out voting.And yes technology can win the war in Iraq.there is a war,and it can be won only by US ARMY,the most technologicaly advanced army n the world.

Well, I must say that I like to hear that the bots can handle rough treatment, although with technology, there is always a way to break them.

And we are really out of money. Our military budget is huge, but that is thanks to credit. And as we all know, we can only support ourselves through credit for so long.

As for Iraq, I think that our presence there doesn't really matter that much. The forces that our leaders set in motion will have to play themselves out, and our staying is just delaying this.

Well, I must say that I like to hear that the bots can handle rough treatment, although with technology, there is always a way to break them.

Sure, when you go outside their purpose, but the army only has used them on their terms, because if they hadn't, then you have another roadside bomb hitting as humvee.

And I know that our Congress keeps authorizing spending, but we really don't have the money. That money that they are authorizing is all borrowed. The ballooning deficit is mostly the result of this war, together with the idiotic tax cuts during war times.
That is precisely where bots are meant to come into action. They are by any means cheaper than any soldier and very often more efficient.
Lets take a simple example: in Afghanistan, millions of mines spoil the land, if mine specialist where to come in great numbers it would take ages and it would cost millions. On the contrary, it is easy to ship unmanned minesweepers that typically cost less to produce that a specialist to form, work faster and cost less once on the ground. Moreover if something goes wrong and the Talibans counter-attack or use a mine particularly nasty, well you would lose 100 robots� no biggy!

Most of us don't think of the money because the human loss is so horrible, it doesn't allow us to think about anything else. But the reality is that we cannot afford Iraq.
That's once more where technology comes into action. Technology can be used as a force-multiplier. I don't know how many US troops are in Baghdad right now but I'm ready to bet that with enough CCTVs and bots and whatever else would be needed this number could be significantly reduced.
I know Rumsfeld's initial mistake had been to trust too much special ops and technology, but one of the advantages of technology is also something the US weren't thinking about in 2003: it is much more difficult to fill the US's retreat if you still have the CCTVs and the bots because they could be managed both by an American or an Iraqi without anybody noticing the difference.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Most of the hostilities aren't even Iraqi's themselves! Infact, many of the Sunni tribes are turning there back on Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups, and it's not even the US's doing. They're either tired of what these groups put them through, or are just tired of fighting.

One of the big problems in the early days of Coalition control was its isolation from Iraqi society and the resulting poor choices made in policy. Having a large number of military robots in action may look good from a strictly military viewpoint, but it's going to cause even more resentment with the Iraqi populace and a further detachment by U.S. commanders and leaders. Unless we want to create a Terminator type scenario in Iraq with heartless killing machines hunting bands of insurgents through the ruble then I think another approach is called for.

I get your point but I don't see how CCTVs and bots checking your passports and the inside of your car could decrease the grip the US military have on the Iragi reality.

I also heard about how the U.S. used Shiite to fight Sunni, and using Sunni to fight Shiite. I heard it on the radio, either on NPR or Democracy Now. I can't remember. The latest version that I heard was extremely crazy: that our policy was to help within Iraq the Shiite to bring down the Sunni insurgency, and to help the Sunni outside of Iraq to control the Shiite. If our world were a cheesy action novel, this would work. But in the real world, everyone just gets pissed off at you, and the U.S. is, in fact, arming and encouraging both sides to fight.

If the Bush Adminstration would have listened to the military beforehand, and had the right number of troops on the ground, we wouldn't be in this mess and might be singing a different song.

Wise words. If the Bush administration only listened, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. So many analysts in the CIA, the Pentagon, and academics predicted what happened. I just heard today that Powell told Bush that this would happen if we went into the Middle East. But Bush and his team are smarter than everyone.

It should have been a bad sign when the administration fired the general asking for more soldiers. And what bothers me the most is that the politicians, especially Bush, who is already hinting at this, is going to blame the military for what is really his fault.

guys,are we gona talk about the origines of war (the last gulf war) or wether it can be won technologicaly?