On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:13:57 GMT, Ignoramus4546
wrote:

TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.

I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
sub-thread.
================================================== =======
Long "first principals" response ---

This is a typical American response to a perceived problem,
probably because we were leaders in both creating and producing
technology for many years, and to slightly mangle an old saying
"when the tool you use best is a hammer, everything looks like a
nail."

This is not a bad approach as long as it is "A" *TECHNICAL*
problem you are trying to solve and not a multitude of
inter-related problems lumped under one convenient codeword or
acronym. An additional danger is the misidentification of the
problem even when it is nominally technical - See appended
Business week article.

== An implicit *MAJOR* assumption is the Iraqi insurgents are
not innovative and will/can not develop alternative tactics,
which does not appear to be correct.

Over a 30 year career in industry [1st tier suppliers of
automotive & heavy truck components] and 15 years in
post-secondary education [technology instruction and
administration] I have repeatedly seen well financed and planned
"technical solutions" (some of the proposals should have won a
Pulitzer prize for creative writing) go down in flames because
these were attempting to address either a non-technical problem
with at most a few and generally a single technical aspect, or
more commonly a totally non-technical problem.

These attempts were uniformly expensive in both time and money,
generally produced minimal to no measurable results, and
frequently exacerbated the underlying problem(s). They had the
advantage of generating large amounts of activity, expending
large amounts of money, avoiding examination of the foundational
problems(s) in depth (which were directly the result of
management), and engendering warm and fuzzy feelings such as
"we're doing something!" while avoiding distasteful personnel
confrontations.

One technique for avoiding this is what I call the "plunk the
magic twanger" technique [Google "Froggy the Gremlin" for
background] whereby you assume that whatever you are proposing is
fully operational, and examine how things change.

All together now let's PLUNK THE MAGIC TWANGER and the IEDs are
neutralized. -- Now, how have things changed?

The immediate answer is - not much. Our armed forces are still
confined to their fortified posts, albeit with [more] secure
communications, but are subject to instant death or injury if
they set one foot outside their secure parameters. Operationally
they are still prisoners in Iraq although with an expanded
exercise yard.

The popular "when you have them by the b***s, their hearts and
minds will follow" technique, which is operational and efficient
in hierarchal command organizations such as the military,
corporations or police states, is being applied in amorphous Iraq
with the same success it achieved in amorphous Viet Nam. The
creation of the required police state would simply replace
"their" Saadam with "our" Saadam who would have the additional
baggage of being known as a US puppet. [Ghost of Ngo Dinh Diem
enters stage right at this point.]

When we step back and examine the problem from "first principals"
we see that what is now occurring is an attempt to sell hoards of
very averse, diverse and increasingly hostile customers a change
in their basic lifestyles without speaking their language,
understanding their customs/social structure, or comprehending
their history. [E.g. Would you like a beer with those pork rinds
Ali?] One example of this on a much smaller scale was the
[highly unsuccessful] attempt by a major US car company to sell
their product in Latin America with a name that meant "No Go" in
the local idiom.

The Iraq "problem" is not *A* problem but rather a tremendous
number of separate, overlapping and mutually reinforcing
problems, which are continually evolving and mutating into to
evermore toxic and poisonous forms, many of which are *NOT* the
result of U.S. occupation.

We would do well to remember that the resolution of basic
questions about the political structure and economic basis of the
United States, commonly shorthanded as "slavery," required a
protracted and bloody civil war to resolve. Iraq was in the
process of moving from the 19th to the 20th century under Saadam,
and these questions may have been resolved with fewer Iraqi
deaths and property destruction on a percentage basis that the US
experienced in their civil war.

Additionally, the "solution" to any one existing problem has the
potential to generate (and in many cases are generating) two or
new more problems, producing the classical hydra headed monster.

What is required is a multidisciplinary evaluation including
anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, demographers,
marketing experts and statisticians, although this will produce
highly distasteful conclusions, as these are certain to be
different from the assumptions [wishes? dreams?] of the policy
makers of the cheap quick fix.

=========== Business Week Article from Google =================

Dig Before You Decide

By Keith McFarland Wed Mar 15, 8:08 AM ET

Entrepreneurial companies make fast decisions. And most of the
time, that counts in their favor. But if we don't take care, we
can spend a lot of time, effort, and money chasing solutions that
merely mask the symptoms without diminishing the real problems. A
key sign of a company achieving a transition from
entrepreneur-centric to a real organization: when it begins the
hard work of identifying a handful of root issues facing the
company, which if addressed will best leverage its future
potential.

A good way to identify root issues in your business is to keep
asking: "Why?"

A few years ago National Parks managers noticed the Jefferson
Memorial was crumbling at an alarming rate. When they asked why,
they found out it was being washed far more often than other
memorials. For most organizations, the analysis would stop here.
The solution is clear, right? Adjust the cleaning schedule to
match those of the other memorials.

Midge Of Trouble.
Unfortunately, that solution would have only led to a very dirty
Jefferson Memorial. Because when Parks managers asked about the
reason for the frequent washings, they found it had an
exceptionally large amount of bird droppings deposited on it
every day [no, this isn't a metaphor -- it really happened].
What's the solution now? Erect scarecrows? Declare open season on
pigeons?

Luckily, National Parks managers kept inquiring. And when they
asked why the birds seemed to soil Jefferson at rates higher than
they did so to Kennedy or Lincoln, they discovered the
Virginian's memorial harbored an incredibly large population of
spiders upon which the birds were feeding. And the population of
spiders had exploded because of an abundance of midges (tiny
aquatic insects) in and around the Memorial.

By now, you have the routine down. When Parks managers asked why
so many midges congregated on the Jefferson memorial, they
learned what any fly-fisherman finds out his first day on the
river: Midges are stimulated to emerge and mate by a unique
quality of light (for the rivers of my home state of Utah, it
usually falls between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on a cloudy day).

Gratis And Easy.
It just so happens park managers were inadvertently creating this
unique quality of brightness by turning the lights on the
memorial just before dusk. This one variable caused the whole
chain of events -- lots of midges, lots of spiders, lots of bird
droppings, lots of effort on the part of the cleaning crews, and
finally, the crumbling of the statue.

The solution ended up being pretty simple, and actually saved the
Parks Department money: Just wait until dark to turn on the
lights.

Ridiculing the inanities of government decision-making has turned
into something of a national pastime, but let's give it credit
for getting it right this time. I shudder to think what might
have resulted had the problem been assigned to some of the
entrepreneurial companies I know -- companies that move so fast
they find it hard to stop and think deeply about root causes. My
guess: They would have called task forces charged with
simultaneously formulating new detergent formulas, spreading bird
poison around the memorial (later ingested by children and pets),
and designing intricate spider traps.

Of course, I'm not suggesting entrepreneurial companies should
slow down. Their ability to react quickly can enable them to
better position themselves against deeper-pocketed foes. But
eventually, entrepreneurial companies do need to develop a skill
for getting to the root of an issue. As they grow and become more
complex, the companies will surpass the abilities of all but the
most ingenious entrepreneurs. That means founders need to "clone"
themselves and hone their skills to get to root causes. Most
important, they need to teach people to keep asking: "Why?"
Unka George
(George McDuffee)

What a country calls its vital economic interests are not
the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things
which enable it to make war. Petrol is more likely than wheat
to be a cause of international conflict.
Simone Weil (1909-43), French philosopher, mystic.
«The Power of Words», in Nouveaux Cahiers (1 and 15 April 1937;
repr. in Selected Essays, ed. by Richard Rees, 1962)