What is this new military capability Woodward is talking about?

[alexg]

Sorry if this is wrong place to discuss this or if this has already been discussed but I figure if anyone knows it's probably a smart Jrefer. On 60 minutes tonight Bob Woodward said the real reason the surge in Iraq has calmed violence so well was a new military capability to take out insurgent and Al Qaida leaders - a military breakthrough so powerful it was comparable to the introduction of the airplane or the tank.

Any ideas?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/60minutes/main4415771.shtml

[theprestige]

Any ideas?
Yes: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why should we have to guess at what Woodward is talking about? He's the reporter. If there's something to report, let him report it already.

[alexg]

Why should we have to guess at what Woodward is talking about?

Your resitence to my inocent question perplexes me. First off no one is telling you you 'have to guess' and second the only reason to I brought this up is simple intellectual curiosity. You seem to suggest there is some other agenda.

[technoextreme]

Sorry if this is wrong place to discuss this or if this has already been discussed but I figure if anyone knows it's probably a smart Jrefer. On 60 minutes tonight Bob Woodward said the real reason the surge in Iraq has calmed violence so well was a new military capability to take out insurgent and Al Qaida leaders - a military breakthrough so powerful it was comparable to the introduction of the airplane or the tank.

Any ideas?

Maybe drone/robotics technology. Someone from the army did admit that even though the same number of people were dying from Iraq the number of attacks had to go up to compensate for their effectiveness.

[sol invictus]

If I had to guess I'd say it's some sophisticated form of tracking/communications intercept. For example I know that it's possible to turn on cell phones remotely, even when they're "off", and listen to conversations near them. The only way to avoid this is to remove the battery from the phone. Moreover it's possible to triangulate the position of any cell phone relatively accurately. I don't know if these guys in Iraq use them, but if they do, that might be it.

Pure speculation, though.

[alexg]

If I had to guess I'd say it's some sophisticated form of tracking/communications intercept. For example I know that it's possible to turn on cell phones remotely, even when they're "off", and listen to conversations near them. The only way to avoid this is to remove the battery from the phone. Moreover it's possible to triangulate the position of any cell phone relatively accurately. I don't know if these guys in Iraq use them, but if they do, that might be it.

Pure speculation, though.

Woodward did mention that the US has been listening to pretty much everything Maliki says. So maybe the technology is some sort of surveilance. Odd that Woodward would even mention this stuff it is so top secret.

[FramerDave]

Your resitence to my inocent question perplexes me. First off no one is telling you you 'have to guess' and second the only reason to I brought this up is simple intellectual curiosity. You seem to suggest there is some other agenda.

I don't think it was meant as attack against you. Theprestige probably meant simply that Woodward was making an extraordinary claim, and Woodward as the person making the claim is the person who should be presenting evidence. After all, reporting is what reporters do.

The fact that he did not elaborate should raise a reasonable amount of doubt as to his claim.

[wollery]

A new military capability?

Hitting the enemy instead of their own troops?

[alexg]

I don't think it was meant as attack against you. Theprestige probably meant simply that Woodward was making an extraordinary claim, and Woodward as the person making the claim is the person who should be presenting evidence. After all, reporting is what reporters do.

The fact that he did not elaborate should raise a reasonable amount of doubt as to his claim.

That's fine. I understand.

But Woodward is no Alex Jones. I seriously doubt he is the the kind of guy who would make something like this up or for that matter buy a bill of goods from the administration. Nor do I think would he willingly play the role of a progaganda tool.

However, I am happy to regard the calim as questionable. That should not stop us from discussing the possibiliteis should it? Now if Judy Wood were talking about sapce beams, then yes, the burden is on her to provide evidence before we even give it a thought.

I am simply curious if anyone has any ideas as to what he is talking about. I find it hard to believe that a technology like this could have remained totally hidden.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't think the technology could have remained completely hidden if it were a new kind of rocket or what-have-you.

I agree with Alexg, the logical supposition is that it's a clever means of surveillance which people aren't aware of yet, and I'd guess further that Woodward is allowed to talk about it because the resistance in Iraq has clued in to the fact that the USA is surveilling them somehow but they haven't yet figured out exactly how.

[INRM]

I would guess either some kind of robotics... like one the size of an insect with a small tracking device and potentially a "stinger" with a lethal poison, potentially even a natural one that looks just like something you'd see in nature.

Or some form of tracking/intercept technology and such.


INRM
Should I die suspiciously from getting stung by an insect, you know who to blame for it :p :D

[zigaretten]

This could be nothing more than subterfuge. If you have a spy (or two) in the enemy camp then it would definitely be advantageous if the bad guys think you're getting your information from some super-secret weapon.

Think carrots and eyesight.... http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp

[jdp]

Woodward did mention that the US has been listening to pretty much everything Maliki says. So maybe the technology is some sort of surveilance. Odd that Woodward would even mention this stuff it is so top secret.

He proabably didn't mention it because he had no idea, Woodward would not have knowledge of anything top secret. And if he did he couldn't and proabably wouldn't speculate or hint at what it might be. That is the point of TS of course. ;) If there is something as was described, I am surprised even the military officer hinted at it.

[theprestige]

I am happy to regard the calim as questionable. That should not stop us from discussing the possibiliteis should it?
My mistake; of course there's nothing stopping us from discussing the possibilities. But without any further details from Woodward, the possibilities are, in fact, endless.

I thought you were opening a discussion of Woodward's report specifically, and the evidence (or lack thereof) he was bringing to his claims of knowing about some secret military technique.

[godless dave]

That's fine. I understand.

But Woodward is no Alex Jones. I seriously doubt he is the the kind of guy who would make something like this up or for that matter buy a bill of goods from the administration. Nor do I think would he willingly play the role of a progaganda tool.

Look at the kinds of things he's written over the last 8 years and you might change your mind.

[dudalb]

I think he was talking about suvalliance and the use of unmanned drones for scouting.
Importance developments...particularly the use of unmannned drones for recon..but not quite as earthshaking as Woodward thinks. He is a good reporter but no Military expert.

[sanguine]

I think he was talking about suvalliance and the use of unmanned drones for scouting.
Importance developments...particularly the use of unmannned drones for recon..but not quite as earthshaking as Woodward thinks. He is a good reporter but no Military expert.

I'm gonna have to go with Dave on this one and dispute the "good reporter" assertion as well. 21st-century Woodward and Watergate-era Woodward really aren't one and the same, sadly.

[dahduh]

Woodward reports, for the first time, that there is a secret behind the success of the surge: a sophisticated and lethal special operations program.

From what I know about it, it's one of those things that go back to any war, World War I, World War II, the role of the tank, and the airplane.

Assuming this is not just a load of BS Woodward has been fed: Woodward doesn't explicitly say this is a technology at all. It could simply be a good intelligence operation run using locals who have been burned by al Qaeda. He compares it to the role of tanks and airplanes, and is evasive when asked directly:


"Do you mean to say that this special capability is such an advance in military technique and technology that it reminds you of the advent of the tank and the airplane?" Pelley asked.

"Yeah," Woodward said. "If you were an al Qaeda leader or part of the insurgency in Iraq, or one of these renegade militias, and you knew about what they were able to do, you'd get your ass outta town."


Jus' "get your ass outta town", he says all macho like. We've got like magic you know. Only it needed a surge to make it work, wonder why?

[theprestige]

Jus' "get your ass outta town", he says all macho like. We've got like magic you know. Only it needed a surge to make it work, wonder why?
Maybe the surge is the "new military capability" he's talking about? You know, like how using tanks and airplanes has as great a role in victory as having tanks and airplanes?

Because if I knew the US military was going to come after me in force? I'd get my ass out of town, too. Even if all they had was tanks and planes.

[INRM]

I just saw on TV, during an interview Woodward talking about it again. He said that he was told he could not talk about it and it would get people killed...

I'm wondering if they were using some kind of surveillance like the Combat Zones that See technology which DARPA had considered, or something even more advanced (do a google search you should find at least a wikipedia entry)

I'm not sure it's that in particular or some other kind of surveillance and intercept technology. It could also be as I speculated earlier, a bug sized and shaped robot with surveillance equipment and/or a poison "stinger" or something... hard to track and detect, can track and kill without a trace.

One can obviously predict that this technology could end up being used on American Civilians one day -- political dissidents and the like, nobody of true threat to this country, but people the government doesn't like -- people that can expose wrongdoing...


In either case, I hope I don't get a heart-attack or disappear suddenly for my speculations,
INRM

[PixyMisa]

I just saw on TV, during an interview Woodward talking about it again. He said that he was told he could not talk about it and it would get people killed...
:rolleyes:

I'm wondering if they were using some kind of surveillance like the Combat Zones that See technology which DARPA had considered, or something even more advanced (do a google search you should find at least a wikipedia entry)
Combat Zones that See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Zones_That_See). It's a reasearch project.

I'm not sure it's that in particular or some other kind of surveillance and intercept technology. It could also be as I speculated earlier, a bug sized and shaped robot with surveillance equipment
No it couldn't. You can make a bug-sized robot, but they're not good for much, largely due to power limitations.

and/or a poison "stinger" or something... hard to track and detect, can track and kill without a trace.
And how is that better than, say, and actual Stinger?

One can obviously predict that this technology could end up being used on American Civilians one day -- political dissidents and the like, nobody of true threat to this country, but people the government doesn't like -- people that can expose wrongdoing...
So hypothetical weapons could be used by a hypothetical government against hypothetical dissidents.

Yes, and the value of pi could suddenly change, causing your wheels to fall off.

In either case, I hope I don't get a heart-attack or disappear suddenly for my speculations
Just keep an eye out for suspiciously metallic-looking bugs.

[Toblerowned]

It could be a number of different things I suppose. Like others have mentioned, communications interceptions, spying etc. Could be a weapon. The military as we all know has some serious dough to develop new weapons. And seeing how it's a war, I've got my doubts that it's just surveilence, and would lean to something more efficient in killing the enemy.

Oh I know! Smart bullets that only kill bad people!

[INRM]

Maybe they're using some kind of technology that can use neuroscience breakthroughs and "scan the minds" of people -- either basic thoughts and intents that are consistent with terrorists, or actual thoughts themselves enabling them to find and kill them.

Who knows?


BTW to PixyMisa: Combat Zones that See was a research project, but the technology used was more or less off the shelf and could easily be used in practice.

[sanguine]

No it couldn't. You can make a bug-sized robot, but they're not good for much, largely due to power limitations.


Yeah, the gigantic, DARPA-funded robot and AI research lab next door has not yet built durable, insect-sized assassin robots.

NB -- The only "assassin robots" extant today are UAVs with Hellfires, which is usually plenty good enough.

[dudalb]

Maybe they're using some kind of technology that can use neuroscience breakthroughs and "scan the minds" of people -- either basic thoughts and intents that are consistent with terrorists, or actual thoughts themselves enabling them to find and kill them.

Who knows?


[.[/i]


Someone has been reading way too much Science Fiction lately.
Neuroscience is a long ,long,way from being able to "Read Minds". No way a discovery like that could be kept under wraps.
I wonder if it just not Woodward using hyperbole.

[dudalb]

The other possiblity is "field testing" for the new Individual Infantry Weapon the US Army has spent a lot of time and money developing, which is supposed to be a quantum leap in small arms evolution. I have seen some conception drawings, and it really does look like something out of "Doom" .

[alexg]

He says explicitly that the new capability is for taking out the 'leadership'. And elsewhere it has been reported that this new ability has to do with assasination of top players. Now I doubt the US military would have too much trouble taking anybody out in Iraq, or elsewhere, so long as they know where they are - hence it's my bet that this capability has to do with locating certain key people.

He also says that we have been listening in to pretty much everything Maliki says - perhaps these two abilities are related?

[mikedenk]

Perhaps it's an advance in surveillance.

Imagine a super high-res, streaming Google Earth. It could zoom in and match a person's facial feature to a profile... a few minutes later the cruise missile is launched.

[INRM]

These two links might be a more logical explanation

The first link here, involves tracking all terrorist transmissions online using numerous means including figuring out who typed the messages, where it came from, and such.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110040&org=NSF

The second link discussess predominantly the use of highly advanced computer-modelling, human psychology and advanced simulation.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4424


The thing that worries me is eventually this technology will evolve to the point where political dissidence will be labled a form of terrorism and will be tracked. And I assume if you could track all terrorist transmissions you could track all web-transmissions.


mikedenk,
Imagine a super high-res, streaming Google Earth. It could zoom in and match a person's facial feature to a profile... a few minutes later the cruise missile is launched.

Actually such technology exists. Satellites can already see well enough from orbit to make out people and with facial recognition software, you can indeed ID people from orbit. It seems that such technology is being employed too, as the whistleblower on the NSA warrantless wiretapping case said he wouldn't confirm or deny (when a government official says they cannot confirm or deny, it means that they're confirming but can't legally say they're confirming) that the US was using satellites to track American citizens from outer space.


INRM

[PixyMisa]

Actually such technology exists. Satellites can already see well enough from orbit to make out people and with facial recognition software, you can indeed ID people from orbit. It seems that such technology is being employed too, as the whistleblower on the NSA warrantless wiretapping case said he wouldn't confirm or deny (when a government official says they cannot confirm or deny, it means that they're confirming but can't legally say they're confirming) that the US was using satellites to track American citizens from outer space.
No.

[lordofwaffles]

It's actually a specially trained breed of lizards, equipped with hand grenades. They seek out religious loonies, based on an odd sixth sense that locates intolerant idiots (not to be confused with regular idiots). The lizard then places the grenade in the beard/turban/panties the insurgent in question is wearing, and flees to a safe distance.

Really. It's true. Rated top uber-secret.


In all actuality, I think Woodward is full of poo. The increasing effectiveness of US and Iraqi forces goes more back to good counter-insurgency lessons (as learned, in time for, and forgotten after Algeria, Malaysia, Kenya, India, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc) than super-wizbang space lasers or something. Putting troops at the community level, (in things like Joint Security Stations), getting neighborhoods involved with their own security (Sons Of Iraq, Awakening Councils), and by simply giving jobs to otherwise prospective terrorist recruits (news flash, your average shooter/IED emplacing-insurgent is there because someone paid him 200 bucks to take some shots, rather than any real deep idealogical beliefs. Bombers are a different problem however).

Own the operating environment of the terrorist, put eyes (and guns as the case is) on every corner, and then deny terrorists recruits by offering jobs that don't involve getting shot, and you'll have a pretty good path to success.

[Viper Daimao]

Maybe the surge is the "new military capability" he's talking about? You know, like how using tanks and airplanes has as great a role in victory as having tanks and airplanes?

Because if I knew the US military was going to come after me in force? I'd get my ass out of town, too. Even if all they had was tanks and planes.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe with some networked battlefield technology getting the kinks worked out and paying off dividends too.

[sanguine]

This makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe with some networked battlefield technology getting the kinks worked out and paying off dividends too.

Hell, maybe he was being told about CPOF:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cpof.htm

It's not actually secret, but again, I don't know that Woodward is really good at checking into this kind of thing anymore. When I attended a CPOF presentation a little over a year ago, they indicated that it was really helping them find patterns in bombings and so forth (despite its design having originally started in the era when people were planning armored actions in the Fulda Gap).

[zigaretten]

How about Killer drones that can see through walls.

"For the last couple of days, in the Human Nature blog, I've been looking into a breakthrough cryptically reported in Iraq and Afghanistan: the ability of U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles to identify and track human targets "even when they are inside buildings." Several recently reported technologies might account for it, but Slate reader fozzy suggests looking for the answer in a military research field called STTW, usually translated as "sense-through-the-wall." Has this ability been extended to a distance that allows it to be used by aerial drones?"


http://www.slate.com/id/2200292

[shadron]

Actually such technology exists. Satellites can already see well enough from orbit to make out people and with facial recognition software, you can indeed ID people from orbit. It seems that such technology is being employed too, as the whistleblower on the NSA warrantless wiretapping case said he wouldn't confirm or deny (when a government official says they cannot confirm or deny, it means that they're confirming but can't legally say they're confirming) that the US was using satellites to track American citizens from outer space.


INRM

I'd want to see a source for that. As Pixy says, I doubt it. It is very difficult o get a satellite photo which shows facial features merely on account of the angle seen, let alone such things as heat shimmer, haze and other air distortion. The NSA doesn't do that kind of surveillance; they are mainly a electronic eavesdropping bunch.

And your contention about "cannot conform or deny" is bull. Clancy may write it in his books, but it means just what it says - any discussion about the subject impinges on classified material (no matter how indirectly) and is therefore not being confirmned, denied or discussed. It is indeed the legally safe answer, but nothing is generally inferable from it either. They don't want you to know the answer - why would they give the answer to you in code? Unless, of course, the deliverer winks at you. Then again, that might mean something alogether different, too.

Just how many analysts do you think this NSA (or perhaps the NRO and/or CIA) are employing, anyway? I think they only one they could really be able to track would have been Carmen Miranda (http://www.carmenmiranda.com.br/) or Bella Abzug (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2008-04/2008-04-27-voa2.cfm?CFID=41566388&CFTOKEN=90690342).

[zigaretten]

I think they only one they could really be able to track would have been Carmen Miranda (http://www.carmenmiranda.com.br/) or Bella Abzug (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2008-04/2008-04-27-voa2.cfm?CFID=41566388&CFTOKEN=90690342).


You've obviously never been to Beach Blanket Babylon.

http://www.beachblanketbabylon.com/img/contact_photo.jpg

[shadron]

How about Killer drones that can see through walls.

"For the last couple of days, in the Human Nature blog, I've been looking into a breakthrough cryptically reported in Iraq and Afghanistan: the ability of U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles to identify and track human targets "even when they are inside buildings." Several recently reported technologies might account for it, but Slate reader fozzy suggests looking for the answer in a military research field called STTW, usually translated as "sense-through-the-wall." Has this ability been extended to a distance that allows it to be used by aerial drones?"


http://www.slate.com/id/2200292

This sounds a lot like the DKL device that Clancy was inveigled into using in his "Rainbow Six" novel. It's all over the jref site, and see http://skepdic.com/comments/dklcom.html for more detail.

[shadron]

You've obviously never been to Beach Blanket Babylon.

http://www.beachblanketbabylon.com/img/contact_photo.jpg

Ouch! Gives new meaning to leaving one's heart and head in San Francisco.

[sackett]

How about plain old bribery?

[rocketdodger]

No it couldn't. You can make a bug-sized robot, but they're not good for much, largely due to power limitations.

You shouldn't jest, Pixy. I have been slowly learning circuitry so I can one day create my own cockroach robot.

I guess the difference is that I plan on using it to secretly watch women... shower...

(you think I am joking, but that only shows how little you really know).

[rocketdodger]

Sorry if this is wrong place to discuss this or if this has already been discussed but I figure if anyone knows it's probably a smart Jrefer. On 60 minutes tonight Bob Woodward said the real reason the surge in Iraq has calmed violence so well was a new military capability to take out insurgent and Al Qaida leaders - a military breakthrough so powerful it was comparable to the introduction of the airplane or the tank.

Any ideas?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/60minutes/main4415771.shtml

Communications monitoring.

Unless the terrorists have been recruiting CS and Math grads from the world's best universities, they would be hard pressed to find a means of electronic communication that we couldn't crack.

My guess is we have specialists intercepting electronic communication -- from both cell phones and old fashioned radio frequencies -- and they are deciphering/translating it to find valuable info, as well as tracking the signals to find actual source locations. All of that is very feasable, just costly in terms of both manpower and cash. But thats what we are good at, so *meh*.

[INRM]

This might have something to do with it...

URL: http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/Richardson_Continuous.pdf

It's a non-classified powerpoint from SOCOM - Special Operations COMmand.

[marting]

This might have something to do with it...

URL: http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/Richardson_Continuous.pdf

It's a non-classified powerpoint from SOCOM - Special Operations COMmand.

Fascinating ppt.

My guess is high res cell phone tracking combined with data mining. SIGINT on steroids.

[zigaretten]

"U.S. officials also told The Times that the new surveillance systems allow the operators of the unmanned Predators to locate and identify individual human targets "even when they are inside buildings. ... The technology gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator's lens of confirming a target's identity and precise location."

The Times' story confirms the most sensational revelation contained in Bob Woodward's new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2007," which was published this week. Woodward revealed the technology's existence but, heeding requests from intelligence officials, declined to describe its operations except to say that it had allowed U.S. forces to locate and kill decisive numbers of senior Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi insurgents. In what may be the book's most controversial claim, Woodward argues that the secret technology and the so-called Anbar Awakening -- in which counterinsurgency techniques developed by the Marines won over tribal leaders in that crucial Sunni-dominated province -- had as much or more to do with stabilizing Iraq as the "surge" in U.S. troop numbers."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten13-2008sep13,0,1586694.column

[zigaretten]

The referenced article:

"WASHINGTON -- As part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials."

"American officials requested that details of the new technology not be disclosed out of concern that doing so might enable militants to evade U.S. detection. But officials said the previously unacknowledged devices have become a powerful part of the American arsenal, allowing the tracking of human targets even when they are inside buildings or otherwise hidden from Predator surveillance cameras."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-pakistan12-2008sep12,0,2712447.story

[Homeland Insurgency]

Sorry if this has already been posted...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426062,00.html

Report: Marines in Iraq Issued Laser Weapons
Monday, September 22, 2008

U.S. Marines fighting in Iraq have been issued low-power laser weapons designed to temporarily blind enemy forces, the Washington Post reported Monday.

"Dazzlers," as they're called, shoot green beams designed to "warn or temporarily incapacitate individuals," according to a Defense Science Board report extensively quoted in the Post's story.

[ElMondoHummus]

The Belmont Club blogger "Wretchard" touched on the points zigaretten and marting brought up: Advanced surveillence and heavy use of data mining (http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/12/the-database-war/). His post is not heavy on primary sources, so only trust it as far as warranted with that consideration, but he makes a compelling argument nonetheless that the heavy databasing and mining of information gathered from both electronic surveillence as well as mundane methods is the real "capacity" mentioned.

To begin with, he notes that "collecting information can now rightly be called a major operation of war", and illustrates that with an excerpt of one such operation from Strategy Page (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20080912.aspx):


For the last three years, U.S. troops have been fingerprinting every suspicious character they have come across. The guy they turned lose three years ago for lack of evidence, may be on a wanted list today because his prints were found all over some warm weapons or bomb making materials. Prints can even be lifted off some fragments of exploded bombs.

The army and marines have been doing the same thing police forces and corporations have been doing for over a decade; taking data from many different sources and quickly sorting out what all the pieces mean. It’s called fusion and data mining, and it’s a weapon that is having a dramatic impact on what many thought was an unwinnable war.


He then notes that observational capacities are only half of the equation, and that classification of the observations and identification of the threats and targets is every bit as important:


Beyond these two known points — that the ’secret weapon’ operates on a database and that the database information is collected somehow — we know nothing in the public domain. The suggestion that some device mounted on a UAV can “see” suspects through walls suggests something about the physical signals that particular device works on, whether or not it is the ’secret weapon’ Bob Woodward describes. But keeping to the knowns, or at least to the highly probables, what else can we say about the database? One: that it is a very dangerous and highly valuable piece of information. Second, that the “wanted status” field is by far the most important column in the system.


Of course, Wretchard's thesis is merely speculation. The capacity referred to may indeed only be an actual advance of weaponry, and Woodward's identification of it merely restricted to the weapon's capacities itself; for example, the Stealth Fighter was deployed as early as the Panama invasion in '89, but little news of it was out before Gulf I a couple of years later. That jet hardly impacted Panama, as I recall, but it was still a fabulous new technology that was deployed in secret. Anyway, my point is that Woodward's reference may indeed be limited to a weapons system, or it may indeed be a new capacity in surveillance and targeting, as the LATimes link points out. But to a degree, I'd like to believe the thesis Wretchard put forth is the correct one: That what the military is so proud of is less any given individual and spectacular advance in a narrow area, and more a better synergy between multiple existing and mundane technologies. The "holistic" approach is bound to be more robust, as it doesn't live and die by the weaknesses and flaws in any single given technology or method, and also would demonstrate that there are at least some in the military who're less enamoured of high profile projects and more accepting of the idea of fully exploring the capabilities that already exist.