Thursday - June 25, 2009
Remote Control
I just got back from my two weeks of annual training with the Marine Corps out in the mountains of Central California. It was a large operation, larger than in recent memory for the reserves. Along with the predictable command and control and logistics training, we also helped defense contractors exhibit new technology. In particular, we had a remote control helicopter flying supplies to one of our companies. It's also designed to be able to fly out wounded Marines.
I can't tell you how bad an idea this is.
Here's a picture of the helicopter drone shortly before it accidentally dumped its cargo at the end of the airfield, narrowly missing bystanders as boxes tumbled to the ground.
As my dad reminded me, remote control helicopters aren't a new idea. We just have better controls nowadays.
At Hawthorne Army Depot while in retrograde to Houston, I saw where some remote control armored vehicles were being tested.
Now, I'm all in favor of remote control surveillance aircraft. I'm in favor of remote control explosives ordnance demolition vehicles. But I find it deeply unsettling that so much effort is being spent on remote control resupply vehicles or medivac vehicles.
Imagine you're in a rifle company that's getting shot at. You already probably feel pretty isolated and forgotten by the world, and now you're being delivered supplies by a robot. Your government seems to think that it's okay for you to be in danger, but the danger is too great for someone to simply visit by bringing in supplies.
Remote control vehicles to resupply infantry units are a bad idea because they announce that the government doesn't mind spending tons of money developing and buying systems that keep precious pilots, officers, from getting shot at. The expensive equipment is expendable, but that precious officer flying it is not – because that precious officer is more important than the lance corporals and privates that are told to go into harm's way.
The biggest danger with remote control resupply and medivac vehicles is that it would encourage leaders, politicians and those with decision authority, to put our Marines at greater risk and deeper isolation, making them more likely to be expendable.
Besides, the main strength of a military, as is proven again and again over the millenia and even in our current wars, is that continuity in military presence across terrain is vitally important. Isolated military presence is of limited value and can be easily over run or ignored by a determined enemy.
The Viet Nam War era way of fighting wars on the cheap, as though the military were a business, has contaminated our war fighting to this day. Rumsfeld wanted to fight the wars with the optimum and minimum number of forces required, with the result that he often underestimated requirements. Now the military is treating the military like a factory, trying to reduce costs by reducing manpower.
Fighting a war is not like running a union-controlled factory. Manpower is vital. War is personal. Trying to pretend otherwise lost us the war in Viet Nam, almost lost the war in Iraq, and has caused the war in Afghanistan to flounder.
We need to forget foolish projects like remote control helos for resupply and concentrate on keeping units resupplied by truck or manned helos if there's an emergency – not just because it sends a bad message to the men doing the fighting, but because that is the symptom of an ideology that fails to understand what war is and how wars are won.
War is personal. The purpose of war is to inflict our will on another population. Our will is inflicted by people, not by robots.
Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents
|
