Sources Contact Advanced Search Tutorials

An Interest In:

Web News this Week

Search Archive

Some of Our Sources

View All Sources

Help Webnuz

Referal links:

August 26, 2021 01:00 pm

The Taliban, Not the West, Won Afghanistan's Technological War

sandbagger shares an excerpt from a MIT Technology Review article, written by Christopher Ankersen and Mike Martin: Despite their terrible human costs -- or perhaps because of them -- wars are often times of technological innovation. [...] But Afghanistan is different. There has been technological progress -- the evolution of drone warfare, for example. But the advances made by the US and its allies have not been as pronounced as those seen before, and they haven't been as profound as some experts have claimed. In fact, contrary to the typical narrative, the technological advances that have taken place during the 20 years of conflict have actually helped the Taliban more than the West. If wars are fought through innovation, the Taliban won. What do we mean? The West fought the war in much the same way from beginning to end. The first airstrikes in 2001 were conducted by B-52 bombers, the same model that first saw service in 1955; in August, the attacks that marked the end of US presence came from the same venerable model of aircraft. The Taliban, meanwhile, made some huge leaps. They began this war with AK-47s and other simple, conventional weapons, but today they have harnessed mobile telephony and the internet -- not just to improve their weapons and their command-and-control systems, but even more crucially, to carry out their strategic communications and their influence operations. What accounts for this underwhelming and unevenly distributed technological gain? For the Taliban, the war in Afghanistan has been existential. Confronted with hundreds of thousands of foreign troops from NATO countries, and hunted on the ground and from the air, they had to adapt in order to survive. While the bulk of their fighting equipment has remained simple and easy to maintain (often no more than a Kalashnikov, some ammunition, a radio, and a headscarf), they have had to seek out new technology from other insurgent groups or develop their own. One key example: roadside bombs, or IEDs. These simple weapons caused more allied casualties than any other. Originally activated by pressure plates, like mines, they had evolved by the midpoint of the war so that the Taliban could set them off with mobile phones from anywhere with a cell signal. Because the Taliban's technological baseline was lower, the innovations they have made are all the more significant. But the real technological advance for the Taliban took place at the strategic level. Acutely aware of their past shortcomings, they have attempted to overcome the weaknesses of their previous stint in government. Between 1996 and 2001, they preferred to be reclusive, and there was only one known photo of their leader, Mullah Omar. Since then, though, the Taliban have developed a sophisticated public affairs team, harnessing social media domestically and abroad. IED attacks would usually be recorded by mobile phone and uploaded to one of the many Taliban Twitter feeds to help with recruitment, fundraising, and morale. Another example is the technique of automatically scraping social media for key phrases like "ISI support" -- referring to Pakistan's security service, which has a relationship with the Taliban -- and then unleashing an army of online bots to send messages that attempt to refashion the image of the movement. For the coalition, things were quite different. Western forces did have access to a wide range of world-class technology, from space-based surveillance to remotely operated systems like robots and drones. But for them, the war in Afghanistan was not a war of survival; it was a war of choice. And because of this, much of the technology was aimed at reducing the risk of casualties rather than achieving outright victory. Western forces invested heavily in weapons that could remove soldiers from harm's way -- air power, drones -- or technology that could speed up the delivery of immediate medical treatment. Things that keep the enemy at arm's length or protect soldiers from harm, such as gunships, body armor, and roadside-bomb detection, have been the focus for the West. The West's overarching military priority has been elsewhere: in the battle between greater powers. Technologically, that means investing in hypersonic missiles to match those of China or Russia, for instance, or in military artificial intelligence to try outwitting them. In closing, the authors say that technology "is not a driver of conflict, nor a guarantor of victory. Instead, it is an enabler." "It also tells us that the battlefields of tomorrow might look a lot like Afghanistan," they add. "[W]e will see fewer purely technological conflicts that are won by the military with the greatest firepower, and more old and new technologies fielded side by side."

Slashdot

Slashdot was originally created in September of 1997 by Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda. Today it is owned by Geeknet, Inc..

More About this Source Visit Slashdot