The Army's digital revolution is not supposed to lead to soldiers killing more of their comrades in arms - even in exercises. But reports emerging about desert war games this spring say computer-equipped forces struggled in battle against a conventionally armed foe and accidentally "killed" one another three times more often than non-computerized troops had in three earlier exercises.
Relying on preliminary Pentagon reports, Newsday reported Thursday that "Ivy Focus," a March war game that pitted digitally outfitted troops against conventional enemies, "degenerated into information overloads, system crashes, and a puzzling increase in friendly-fire victims during battlefield exercises."
Newsday said the internal report concluded that information overload detracted "significantly" from operations; that use of exotic digital equipment didn't result in an increase in troops' killing power, survival rates, or operational speed; and that there was a large unexplained "increase in fratricide friendly fire."
With a budget of US$20 million, the two-week experiment involved 6,000-plus soldiers and 900 high-tech vehicles. Some 1,250 contractors evaluated the performance of various high-tech gadgets that were supposed to hone the Army's edge for the 21st century.
The report emerged three days after Defense Secretary William Cohen and General John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pumped Congress for a $1 billion infusion to create a high-tech fighting force called Army 21. So far, developing the digitized fighting force has cost about $750 million.
Trying to put a favorable spin on the news, Philip E. Coyle III, director of the experimental force's operational test and evaluation office, issued a statement saying that "the Army did a terrific job."
"This was intended to be an experiment - not some kind of pass/fail examination - and it was a very successful experiment," Coyle said.
Other Army officers insisted that, cyber kills and communications snafus aside, Ivy Focus was a success.
"The exercise was really a revolution in the way soldiers and contractors work together," said Lieutenant Colonel Mike Monnett of Army public affairs. "Guys on the field could have a contractor right there with them. They could tell the contractors what was wrong with the prototypes they were working with, then have a fix the same day."
But 32 incidents of simulated friendly fire among the information-overloaded digital force was more devolutionary than revolutionary. By comparison, three previous conventional exercises caused 28 friendly fire "deaths." The increase remains unexplained.
"They could be attributable to a number of things," said Major Mark Newell, who was present at Fort Irwin during the experiment. "There were a much larger number of people on the field than usual, the theater of operations was larger than usual, there was an increase in the operational tempo of the fighting, and we were working with experimental equipment."
The Pentagon plans to release a formal report on Ivy Focus later this summer.
