I am a firm believer in using technology to educate and train. However, regarding electronics, there are two things that need to be considered: 1) electronics can be used to improve the educational experience but they don't educate, and 2) if your primary plan revolves around electronics, always have an analog back up.
Electronics make life easier. They make it easier for Soldiers "to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat." However, as inferred in the article, despite the malfunctions and jamming of electronic devices the missions pressed on. When Soldiers are prepared to go analog, the chaos that ensues after electronics go down becomes controlled chaos. Even though things will slow down and the danger level goes up, the mission can still be accomplished.
At the school district I work at we have various programs that track attendance, monitor student progression, and even grade essays. Despite all of these wonderful programs, one of my mentors prefers to do everything analog. Even though I disagree with his philosophies, when the programs faltered for almost a week straight, he didn't skip a beat. Meanwhile, it seemed that many of the classes that house 12-15 years olds where about to go through a Lord of the Flies experience. Luckily, I took his advice in always having an analog back-up lesson plan and was able to maintain a positive educational experience...for the most part.
Analog training can be slow and tedious. I'd much rather type a report than hand write one. However, they are skills that can't be replaced and they enhance our skills with the electronic devices. This is why it is important to include analog training.
The further we advance in technology, the more reliant we can become on it. Although I am a fan of the military's technological advances in helping us complete tasks and missions, I believe that it is still essential to still know how to complete those same tasks and missions without the help of technology. I also believe that in some areas, our "technological advances" have also hindered our progress. As we learn new technological systems as older systems become obsolete, we spend precious time retraining on a new system for the same tactics and techniques that we have always used and learned. It is my personal belief that our next world war will send everyone back into the stone-age. The first thing to go will be our technology. If we are not trained to do our jobs, tasks, and mission through analog methods, then we are sure to fail.
I'm going to begin with a non-Army analogy related to the new civilian career upon which I am entering: law enforcement. These days, a police vehicle is filled with a multitude of electronic gadgets and systems. Multi-directional Radar and LIDAR speed detection readers, Wi-fi systems for the on-board computer, GPS and map software to show the locations of incidents and other deputies, etc. All of these systems serve to decrease response times, increase officer safety, and add capabilities to the proverbial toolbox. They act as force multipliers, increasing the efficiency of the unit. But what happens when electronics fail during a crisis? Have you used your technology as a crutch for too long, making you unable to navigate across the county in time to reach your partner who's in a fight for his life?
It's easy to repeat the 'machines fail' mantra ad nauseam. In fact, we heard it so much in ROTC training that people started to roll their eyes when they used a compass and protractor to navigate, ignoring the high-tech GPS device nearly everyone had in their pocket. We roll our eyes at situations like that because there's no penalty if the technology were to fail, and a big payoff when it does. This is, unfortunately, an all too-common mental pitfall during training: focusing too much on the end-state versus the process of achieving it. The reason we train analog skills isn't necessarily because that's the optimum way to execute a task; it's because that's the baseline we need to be able to execute when our force multipliers are removed. In law enforcement or the Army, technological assets support the mission. They make us better at tasks which we should already be able to perform. It's important to build this mentality for a few reasons. Firstly, it builds that basic level of competency to fall back on when systems fail. Secondly, it increases the utility of and aptitude for said systems because, by knowing the analog process, we can better understand how technology acts as a function to increase our efficiency at the given task.
The way we train is critical to the coming years. We live in a world that hasn't seen a large scale peer/near peer conflict in most peoples' lifetimes. The US is finally entering into a proxy-conflict environment with heavy resistance from near peer adversaries, with Russia providing direct support to the Assad regime through electronic countermeasures, anti-air defenses, and more. The US is now faced with an adversary who can negate some of the technology we've used to great effect in asymmetric conflicts. The Syria conflict will no doubt serve as a test-bed for each nation involved to gauge the systems and capabilities of one another. As we develop solutions, our adversaries will work to counter them, and vice versa. In non-permissive environments such as Syria, the ability to operate independent of high technology becomes ever more important.
I'll end with a caveat. Analog training is critical. But, much of our ability to fight a near-peer/peer adversary will rely heavily on electronic warfare. Russia is highly capable in this arena and has the potential to overwhelm the US. They've been practicing electronic warfare throughout the many conflicts they've thrust themselves into over the last decade; Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria, as well as smaller cyber/electronic attacks on countries like Estonia. Last year, General Milley ordered a review of the Army's EW shortfalls in order to fix them as part of the Multi-Domain battle concept. The point being; unlike like how technological advancements prior to WWI outpaced tactical doctrine, we have to recognize that adding new electronic battle-spaces to conflicts means not all skills CAN be trained as analog. The force's ability to dominate those spaces may determine whether or not the rest of us get to use our newfangled gadgets and electronics, or have to revert to the compass and protractor.
Love the comments! Thank you LT Flores, LT Hill and LT Schwartz!
First, in our downrange environments, we've become so reliant on our technological overmatch that we take for granted that it will always work for us. Second, for nearly 20 years, we haven't had to defend our technological overmatch in a downrange environment so we haven't developed countermeasure technology. The Army as an institution, is well behind the power curve when it comes to maintaining and defending our technology against a peer or near peer enemy.
Therefore, in order to enable the capabilities we do have when fighting against a peer or near peer, we have to ensure we are capable of reverting back to the analog realm. In short, analog matters because it's all we might have to defeat the most dangerous threats our country faces. We must develop and maintain proficiency in an analog environment in order to hedge against the loss of a critical capability.
I am a firm believer in using technology to educate and train. However, regarding electronics, there are two things that need to be considered: 1) electronics can be used to improve the educational experience but they don't educate, and 2) if your primary plan revolves around electronics, always have an analog back up.
ReplyDeleteElectronics make life easier. They make it easier for Soldiers "to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat." However, as inferred in the article, despite the malfunctions and jamming of electronic devices the missions pressed on. When Soldiers are prepared to go analog, the chaos that ensues after electronics go down becomes controlled chaos. Even though things will slow down and the danger level goes up, the mission can still be accomplished.
At the school district I work at we have various programs that track attendance, monitor student progression, and even grade essays. Despite all of these wonderful programs, one of my mentors prefers to do everything analog. Even though I disagree with his philosophies, when the programs faltered for almost a week straight, he didn't skip a beat. Meanwhile, it seemed that many of the classes that house 12-15 years olds where about to go through a Lord of the Flies experience. Luckily, I took his advice in always having an analog back-up lesson plan and was able to maintain a positive educational experience...for the most part.
Analog training can be slow and tedious. I'd much rather type a report than hand write one. However, they are skills that can't be replaced and they enhance our skills with the electronic devices. This is why it is important to include analog training.
p.s. this is 1LT Flores, Dustin, 142 Staff, S2 shop
DeleteThe further we advance in technology, the more reliant we can become on it. Although I am a fan of the military's technological advances in helping us complete tasks and missions, I believe that it is still essential to still know how to complete those same tasks and missions without the help of technology. I also believe that in some areas, our "technological advances" have also hindered our progress. As we learn new technological systems as older systems become obsolete, we spend precious time retraining on a new system for the same tactics and techniques that we have always used and learned. It is my personal belief that our next world war will send everyone back into the stone-age. The first thing to go will be our technology. If we are not trained to do our jobs, tasks, and mission through analog methods, then we are sure to fail.
ReplyDeleteLT Hill
I'm going to begin with a non-Army analogy related to the new civilian career upon which I am entering: law enforcement. These days, a police vehicle is filled with a multitude of electronic gadgets and systems. Multi-directional Radar and LIDAR speed detection readers, Wi-fi systems for the on-board computer, GPS and map software to show the locations of incidents and other deputies, etc. All of these systems serve to decrease response times, increase officer safety, and add capabilities to the proverbial toolbox. They act as force multipliers, increasing the efficiency of the unit.
ReplyDeleteBut what happens when electronics fail during a crisis? Have you used your technology as a crutch for too long, making you unable to navigate across the county in time to reach your partner who's in a fight for his life?
It's easy to repeat the 'machines fail' mantra ad nauseam. In fact, we heard it so much in ROTC training that people started to roll their eyes when they used a compass and protractor to navigate, ignoring the high-tech GPS device nearly everyone had in their pocket. We roll our eyes at situations like that because there's no penalty if the technology were to fail, and a big payoff when it does. This is, unfortunately, an all too-common mental pitfall during training: focusing too much on the end-state versus the process of achieving it. The reason we train analog skills isn't necessarily because that's the optimum way to execute a task; it's because that's the baseline we need to be able to execute when our force multipliers are removed.
In law enforcement or the Army, technological assets support the mission. They make us better at tasks which we should already be able to perform. It's important to build this mentality for a few reasons. Firstly, it builds that basic level of competency to fall back on when systems fail. Secondly, it increases the utility of and aptitude for said systems because, by knowing the analog process, we can better understand how technology acts as a function to increase our efficiency at the given task.
The way we train is critical to the coming years. We live in a world that hasn't seen a large scale peer/near peer conflict in most peoples' lifetimes. The US is finally entering into a proxy-conflict environment with heavy resistance from near peer adversaries, with Russia providing direct support to the Assad regime through electronic countermeasures, anti-air defenses, and more. The US is now faced with an adversary who can negate some of the technology we've used to great effect in asymmetric conflicts. The Syria conflict will no doubt serve as a test-bed for each nation involved to gauge the systems and capabilities of one another. As we develop solutions, our adversaries will work to counter them, and vice versa. In non-permissive environments such as Syria, the ability to operate independent of high technology becomes ever more important.
I'll end with a caveat. Analog training is critical. But, much of our ability to fight a near-peer/peer adversary will rely heavily on electronic warfare. Russia is highly capable in this arena and has the potential to overwhelm the US. They've been practicing electronic warfare throughout the many conflicts they've thrust themselves into over the last decade; Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria, as well as smaller cyber/electronic attacks on countries like Estonia. Last year, General Milley ordered a review of the Army's EW shortfalls in order to fix them as part of the Multi-Domain battle concept. The point being; unlike like how technological advancements prior to WWI outpaced tactical doctrine, we have to recognize that adding new electronic battle-spaces to conflicts means not all skills CAN be trained as analog. The force's ability to dominate those spaces may determine whether or not the rest of us get to use our newfangled gadgets and electronics, or have to revert to the compass and protractor.
Love the comments! Thank you LT Flores, LT Hill and LT Schwartz!
ReplyDeleteFirst, in our downrange environments, we've become so reliant on our technological overmatch that we take for granted that it will always work for us. Second, for nearly 20 years, we haven't had to defend our technological overmatch in a downrange environment so we haven't developed countermeasure technology. The Army as an institution, is well behind the power curve when it comes to maintaining and defending our technology against a peer or near peer enemy.
Therefore, in order to enable the capabilities we do have when fighting against a peer or near peer, we have to ensure we are capable of reverting back to the analog realm. In short, analog matters because it's all we might have to defeat the most dangerous threats our country faces. We must develop and maintain proficiency in an analog environment in order to hedge against the loss of a critical capability.