CHAPTER 3 - CAN TECHNOLOGY SAVE SOLDIERS' LIVES IN IRAQ?

Few areas demonstrate the need for effective information systems more than warfare. Poor communication and inefficient systems don't just waste money; they put soldiers in harm's way and increase their risk of being injured or killed. Though the U.S. Army has made great technological strides in recent years, many of those new technologies have not translated to better safety and more accurate flow of information in the combat zone. Some of the struggles of the U.S. counterinsurgency effort in Iraq illustrate these weaknesses. The U.S. military went into the Iraq War with many technological advantages. These included data transmission capacity that was 42 times faster than what was available to U.S. forces during the Gulf War; a plethora of sensor technologies such as motion sensors, heat detectors, and reconnaissance eavesdroppers; and an advanced vehicle tracking system, Blue Force Tracker, which marks the location of U.S. units and enables e-mail communication.

The technology available to the enemy forces pales in comparison. But despite these significant advantages in information gathering, the methods used by the military to communicate that information suffered from critical flaws. Information about enemy movements and troop levels did not reach the officers on the ground in many cases, despite the wealth of technology available. Why? First the technology itself was often less efficient than advertised. Units often outran the range of high-capacity communications relays, and mobile communications suffered from slow download speeds, buggy software, and lockups, some as long as 10 to 12 hours at a time. Communicating data required units to be stationary to send and receive the information, leaving the units vulnerable to attack. The organization of U.S. military forces and the chain of command also