Pentagon Red Tape Delayed Iraq’s Life-Saving Laser Weapons
25 replies, posted
[quote=gizmodo]
LASERS
Pentagon Red Tape Delayed Iraq’s Life-Saving Laser Weapons
David Axe - Wired — Military bureaucrats needlessly blocked U.S. troops in Iraq from getting laser weapons - tools that could've kept civilians from getting killed. That, in a nutshell, is what the Pentagon's Inspector General concluded after an investigation of the Marine Corps' botched attempts to send the nonlethal lasers to the war zone.
It's a major mea culpa, but it comes with an important caveat: Sure, the Marines' pencil-pushers mishandled the urgent request for lasers, first issued five years ago. But that doesn't give today's front-line commanders an excuse for circumventing the bureaucrats.
The background to the IG's investigation is a tragic one. During the bloodiest phase of the Iraq war, native civilians, long accustomed to barreling through traffic in their compact cars, would unwittingly speed toward U.S. military checkpoints.
They looked a lot like suicide bombers. Startled Americans would yell, flash their Humvees' headlights and even fire warning shots - often to no effect.
Iraqi roads are too chaotic, and many warnings simply too ambiguous. Faced with a last-second decision to open fire or risk a suicide blast, the Americans often opted to shoot the driver.
There's no telling how many Iraqis died this way. Compounding the tragedy is the possibility that it was all preventable.
As early as the spring of 2006, the Pentagon admits, an inexpensive bit of off-the-shelf technology could have given U.S. Marines at their checkpoints in western Iraq a better way of warning off approaching drivers. But the tech - a nonlethal laser gun that "dazzles" drivers and forces them off the road - ran afoul of the Marines' weapon-developing bureaucracy.
The laser dazzlers were nine months late when they finally arrived in Iraq in late 2006. In the interim, as many as 50 innocent Iraqis were killed in checkpoint shootings, according to one Marine study.
"The lack of a nonlethal laser dazzler capability increased the risk of unwarranted escalation-of-force incidents and the difficulty of safeguarding civilians," the Inspector General's report (.pdf) notes.
"The decision to delay," the report adds, "was unnecessary."
The Marine Corps' failure to get lifesaving technology to its front-line troops in a timely manner speaks to the military's ongoing struggle with a bloated, slow-moving bureaucracy that seems, at times, to forget that America is at war. But in addition to condemning the bureaucracy for its lethargy, the IG also issued a warning to combat units that might try to go behind the bureaucrats' backs by buying new gear with their own funds.
The need for dazzlers was apparent even before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Lt. Gen. Martin Berndt, commander of Marine forces in Europe, included dazzlers on a list of "urgently needed capabilities" in a February 2003 letter addressed to the commandant of the Marine Corps and copied to Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Virginia. Berndt's letter should have served as a heads-up, but to be fair, the formal request for dazzlers didn't come until more than two years later, from the II Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq.
After a spate of checkpoint incidents, II MEF filed an "urgent universal need statement" in September 2005, requesting 400 dazzlers, each costing around $10,000. The urgent-need process is supposed to take just six months from request to fielding, but in this case Development Command waited six months before even beginning the process of buying lasers.
According to the IG, the first four months of delay resulted from Development Command's dispute with the deployed troops over which laser the Corps should purchase. II MEF had specifically requested a dazzler from Connecticut's LE Systems, but that model hadn't been certified by the Navy's laser-safety board - though U.S. Special Forces had endorsed it. Incredibly, the spat over the dazzler brand outlasted II MEF's deployment.
I MEF, the command that replaced II MEF in Iraq in mid-2006, shared the preference for the LE Systems laser. Frustrated with the bureaucratic delays, I MEF bought 28 of LE Systems' dazzlers using its own money and had them shipped directly to Iraq.
When the Marine brass found out, they ordered I MEF to lock away the LE Systems dazzlers and never use them in combat. Today, the IG is recommending the Marine Corps investigate the circumstances of I MEF's laser purchase and "if appropriate, initiate administrative action."
Only after the LE Systems debacle did Development Command initiate the formal process for buying approved dazzlers. "An additional two months elapsed because the administrative processing of the urgent request lagged," the IG's report continued. "As a result, the Marines deployed to Iraq in 2006 were unnecessarily left without a nonlethal laser dazzler capability."
That "increased the risk of unwarranted escalation of force incidents." The 400 Navy-certified lasers didn't begin reaching Iraq until very late in 2006 or early in 2007.
In 2007, Marine Corps scientist Franz Gayl - a longtime critic of the Pentagon establishment - lumped the dazzler with blastproof trucks and small aerial drones as examples of urgently needed weapons that the Marine Corps bureaucracy has deliberately delayed in recent years, to the detriment of front-line troops.
"Gross mismanagement of the dazzler issue may have created a significant adverse impact on the [Ground Combat Element's] ability to accomplish its mission," he claimed. (Gayl would later be stripped of his security clearance, allegedly in retaliation for his whistleblowing efforts.)
LE Systems founder Titus Casazza explained that, perversely, delays could translate into job security for bureaucrats. "Is it that the longer things take, the more complicated you make it and the longer the approval process takes, the longer you keep your job? Nobody wants to make a decision without CYA [cover your ass] up one side and the other."
With America's state and non-state rivals only becoming more sophisticated, the Pentagon knows it must do better. The Marine Corps introduced a new Web-based system in October 2008 for tracking weapons requests. "The establishment of the Virtual Urgent Universal Need Statement system should improve the efficiencies of the urgent-needs process," the IG claimed.
That's good news for U.S. troops, but no comfort at all for all those dead Iraqis, the Marines involved in unnecessary killings, or the Marine officers who could face disciplinary action for daring to buy badly needed gear for their troops, over the heads of heel-dragging bureaucrats.
[/quote]
Source:
[url]http://gizmodo.com/#!5761921/pentagon-red-tape-delayed-iraqs-life+saving-lasers[/url]
Goddammit.
As a member of the Armed Forces, I can attest to the fact that the Military Bureaucracy is a slow-moving money sinkhole. My unit ordered replacement equipment over a year ago and just received them the other week. It's actually kind of depressing to be honest.
Slow bureaucracy? This is hardly news! :v:
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28094868]As a member of the Armed Forces, I can attest to the fact that the Military Bureaucracy is a slow-moving money sinkhole. My unit ordered replacement equipment over a year ago and just received them the other week. It's actually kind of depressing to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Could just be a slow postal service?
The Department of Defense at work. The American military procurement and development process has always been hell most of the time.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28094868]As a member of the Armed Forces, I can attest to the fact that the Military Bureaucracy is a slow-moving money sinkhole. My unit ordered replacement equipment over a year ago and just received them the other week. It's actually kind of depressing to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Think that is bad half of my reserve unit does not have rifles!
Their (Civilian's) fault:
They failed to:
Stop when yelled at
Stop when THERE IS A FUCKING OBVIOUS MILITARY CHECKPOINT INFRONT OF THEM
Pay attention to warning signs posted near BLATANTLY OBVIOUS MILITARY CHECKPOINTS
They did idiotic shit such as:
Randomly barrel around the street like retards
Sped towards military checkpoints like suicide bombers
Acted like birds that A. Fly into windows or B. Fly into jet engines
Someone has to be retarded to drive like that and be so damn negligent.
Put in that situation would you:
A. Not shoot at shit driver (Probably a suicide bomber) and promptly die a painful slow death after getting BLOWN THE FUCK UP.
or
B. Shoot potential suicide bomber and have much higher chances of survival.
If you chose B...
Congratulations you have just increased your lifespan by another 5 minutes.
EDIT:
I should mention they drove shitty compact cars.
EDIT:
Wouldn't a laser cause them to crash their cars into the nearest wall? Instinct usually results in you hold on to things when dazed, such as the trigger of a recoiling gun, or in this case: The foot pedal.
[QUOTE=certified;28095569]Their (Civilian's) fault:
They failed to:
Stop when yelled at
Stop when THERE IS A FUCKING OBVIOUS MILITARY CHECKPOINT INFRONT OF THEM
Pay attention to warning signs posted near BLATANTLY OBVIOUS MILITARY CHECKPOINTS
They did idiotic shit such as:
Randomly barrel around the street like retards
Sped towards military checkpoints like suicide bombers
Acted like birds that A. Fly into windows or B. Fly into jet engines
Someone has to be retarded to drive like that and be so damn negligent.
Put in that situation would you:
A. Not shoot at shit driver (Probably a suicide bomber) and promptly die a painful slow death after getting BLOWN THE FUCK UP.
or
B. Shoot potential suicide bomber and have much higher chances of survival.
If you chose B...
Congratulations you have just increased your lifespan by another 5 minutes.
EDIT:
I should mention they drove shitty compact cars.
EDIT:
Wouldn't a laser cause them to crash their cars into the nearest wall? Instinct usually results in you hold on to things when dazed, such as the trigger of a recoiling gun, or in this case: The foot pedal.[/QUOTE]
are you stupid or are you just trolling
[QUOTE=Archy;28095708]are you stupid or are you just trolling[/QUOTE]
Think about it. The civilians lacked the common sense to survive one of the most easiest to survive situations in a war. You approach a military checkpoint. Do you:
A. Stop for a quick search of your vehicle and a possible questioning and promptly go on your way.
B. Turn onto a different road
C. HURR, IM GOING TO BARREL AT HIGH SPEEDS INTO/THROUGH THE CHECKPOINT AND PRETEND I WILL BE ALRIGHT DURR!
C is what those 50 dead civilians did. Ah well: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection[/url]
wow, you're a dumbass
Couldn't they try to shoot the tires of the vehicle before the people? I'm sure there are ways of stopping these people without killing them.
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;28096587]Couldn't they try to shoot the tires of the vehicle before the people? I'm sure there are ways of stopping these people without killing them.[/QUOTE]
A windscreen is a bigger target than a tire when they're traveling at 60mph+. Plus, a popped wheel doesn't always mean the car will stop.
It's sad, but it's the only good odds of stopping somebody
Well maybe not shoot the tires. But I know there are other ways to disable a vehicle rather than kill the people.
Why in the world would they be driving at 60MPH towards a military checkpoint?
why politicians should not get involved in the military
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;28098277]Well maybe not shoot the tires. But I know there are other ways to disable a vehicle rather than kill the people.[/QUOTE]
There's anti-vehicle weapons, but most of those just use bigger bullets or launch explosives which is less than ideal to use on a busy road for a lot of reasons.
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;28098277]Well maybe not shoot the tires. But I know there are other ways to disable a vehicle rather than kill the people.[/QUOTE]
Shooting the engine [I]might[/I] stop it, but I guess there is always the risk of missing or not actually stopping it.
I think (with my knowledge just being based on reading the internets) that this laser is the best way of stopping a vehicle travelling at speed.
Although I saw a device once which damages the wheels etc if a car goes over it while its deployed, but I think it only works at slow speeeds.
[QUOTE=certified;28098314]Why in the world would they be driving at 60MPH towards a military checkpoint?[/QUOTE]
If you've ever been or Turkey or any other country in that area you'd know that the drivers there make the ones in most cities seem empathic and careful.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28098375]Shooting the engine [I]might[/I] stop it, but I guess there is always the risk of missing or not actually stopping it.
I think (with my knowledge just being based on reading the internets) that this laser is the best way of stopping a vehicle travelling at speed.
Although I saw a device once which damages the wheels etc if a car goes over it while its deployed, but I think it only works at slow speeeds.[/QUOTE]
Shooting the engine block would take a lot of rounds to kill it and even then the car is still moving towards you.
[QUOTE=wuzzimu;28098458]Shooting the engine block would take a lot of rounds to kill it and even then the car is still moving towards you.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem with the idea in general, I think you would have to be extremely lucky to disable (and stop) a vehicle by shooting it.
"Iraq’s Life-Saving Laser Weapons"
Set up systems that when activated, shoot up something that just grabs onto the drive shaft and forces the car to slow down.
[QUOTE=certified;28095965]Think about it. The civilians lacked the common sense to survive one of the most easiest to survive situations in a war. You approach a military checkpoint. Do you:
A. Stop for a quick search of your vehicle and a possible questioning and promptly go on your way.
B. Turn onto a different road
C. HURR, IM GOING TO BARREL AT HIGH SPEEDS INTO/THROUGH THE CHECKPOINT AND PRETEND I WILL BE ALRIGHT DURR!
C is what those 50 dead civilians did. Ah well: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection[/url][/QUOTE]
It took me two posts to hate you completely. Must be some kind of personal record for you
"Life saving laser weapons"
Gentlemen, the future is here.
But somebody requested them in 2003, so the future was in 2003! :pseudo:
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;28096587]Couldn't they try to shoot the tires of the vehicle before the people? I'm sure there are ways of stopping these people without killing them.[/QUOTE]
They have no idea how many explosives are in that car. That car could just barely get in range and the guy could realize he's gonna die and blow it.
So wasting time to try and shoot out the tires seems stupid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.