You can't hack a battlefield comms network. It isn't connected to the internet therefor no outside access. This provides a way into the closed system by getting on their ecrypted radio networks and using that to further dig into their network.
Boba Frag said:
Absolutely. The fact that the Revolution in Military affairs and the doctrine of pre-emptive war has been proven totally worthless, costly, and essentially another Vietnam.
Conflict with China, while some would have us believe is inevitable, is realistically not on the cards. China and the US have far too much to lose economically.
Developing ways of guarding againsts cyber attacks and even developing Cyber warfare capabilities is all well and good, but only when there aren't thousands of troops deployed far across the world that badly need all the resources they can get.
This project shows that already the Pentagon is trying to forget about Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have to take issue with this. It is nothing at all like Vietnam. Vietnam started out as a small advisory action that built up to full battlefield conflict. Vietnam was lost because the White House and Congress wouldn't allow the Armed Services to win. They wouldn't let the Air Force bomb a SAM site until it was operational thus ensuring that it would get a chance to fire at US pilots. The conflict we are in now is well on it's way to being mostly won. The problem we have is simply that the native government doesn't have the police capacity to combat the terrorists. The people are turning more and more against the terrorists in their own country as they see they no longer have to fear them. With the US and allies there in country we are allowing them to not live in fear of these elements. This allows them breathing room to build up to the level where they can combat the enemy themselves.
Your assessment of the Iraq conflict is naive at best. Vietnam was never winnable- it was civil war that was mistaken for some sort of global Communist takeover. It was no such thing.
And quite frankly, there are plenty of parrellels with Vietnam.
Both were classic examples of how a lumbering, powerful military has great desructive power, but is next to useless against highly mobile guerrilla units. Troops would go for weeks without encountering Vietcong fighters.
The Iraq insurgency has seen similar tactics which bedevilled the US military for years. Yes, the tide has turned somewhat, but only because as you said the people in the country are turning against those elements of the wildly differing array of factions and interests that are involved.
Furthermore, you make it sound like Iraq was some sort of terrorist training camp before the US invasion. This is not only incorrect, but ignores the fact that Al Qaeda and the various militias started operating *after* the invasion. The integrity of the Iraqi state had crumbled with the decision to practically dismantle every aspect of the country's political structure's ability to maintain order.
There has been an incredible surge in sectarian killings in Iraq because of religious, ethnic and tribal tensions which has largely been ignored in favour of reporting dramatic gun battles, suicide bombings and raids against insurgents.
That's another thing- Iraq has few actual terrorists, but plenty of insurgents. They locate themselves in their own country, attack coalition troops when their own control and power over an area or district is threatened, not because they all fervently believe the US is satan in Ray Bans.
I know to some sections of the population that's hard to grasp, but the reality is that the Iraq invasion was based on lies and deceit. The plan to blitz through Iraq was tactically effective, but a major strategic cock up. Saddam was a tyrant, true, but what alternative was put in place?
There was no effort to establish order once a town was captured, the units involved generally just moved on to their next objective.
So.. we have a misunderstanding of the local cultures, power relationships.. like in Vietnam
We have an ill-equipped force doing the job... like in Vietnam.
And we have a huge number civilian deaths due to ignorance, poor intelligence, accident, or from over stressed, highly aggressive troops that can't make distinctions between civilians or enemies because the enemy is not wearing uniforms.... like in Vietnam.
Sad but true- if there had been no invasion, there would be no need to prop up a weak government with insufficiently trained, inexperienced security forces that require American military might to keep the country stable.
I recommend anyone interested reads Thomas E. Ricks' book The Gamble which details why levels of violence dropped so dramatically.