iraq

Al Martinez: “To Hold A War's Horror At Bay, We Touch It”: March 21, 2005

“There are some who would be shocked and disgusted at the very idea that our troops in Iraq are making home movies that feature charred and decapitated corpses while rock music plays in the background. But I’m not. War by its very nature is a surreal experience and those involved in it become desensitized to its violence. It assumes the emotional equivalent of a movie or a video game, and the contrapuntal hisses and booms of combat constitute the driving tones of new music, played fortissimo. I’m referring to a front-page piece a few days ago by Louise Roug, one of our reporters in the war zone, who wrote about soldiers carrying video cameras to depict the scenes of gore and then scoring the scenes with music. Roug quotes one soldier as saying his cinéma vérité was a trophy, something to say, ”I was there. I did this,“ much as in earlier wars our troops collected Japanese flags or German bayonets to prove they had participated in the experience of a lifetime. Friends who read Roug’s piece shuddered at the knowledge that our sons and daughters seemed almost to enjoy what they had accomplished in terms of human misery, sometimes adding humor to their video mixes. One friend, a teacher, said, ”I can’t believe they’re doing that.“ I can. Our generations exist in an Age of War that began in 1941 and has continued almost unabated ever since, in both larger and less notable ways. Those of us who participated in their horror and those simply raised in it have been damaged in ways that are beyond measurement. It’s why we can accept the blood sport of video games played by kids and grown-ups alike, and why the gruesome special effects of war and murder on the big screen don’t horrify us, and why death on the streets has become an acceptable element of urban life. It’s also why we cheer verdicts of death and accept torture as a legitimate tool of military interrogation. In an Age of War, its trophies become, like trinkets from a trip to Disney World, nothing more than souvenirs. Because war desensitizes, those in combat view it differently than those at home. [...]

...I am not shocked by the videos being taken by those who are trying to stay alive under intensely difficult situations. They have become conditioned to seeing pain and causing pain, to seeing death and causing death. Their video trophies are, as a scholar put it, diaries of what they are enduring, letters from an existential world distorted by its proximity to hell. Only when they come home to stay will most of them realize, as I did, what horror we inflict on each other. And then, as I did, they can throw out the pictures they have collected and leave it to dark places in the mind to recall what it was like when the loud, hard music of war was playing.”
[Los Angeles Times]

Text Messaging Is New Tool Of Political Underground: March 29, 2005

“...cell phone text messaging has become a powerful underground channel of free and often impolite speech, especially in the oil-rich Persian Gulf monarchies, where mobile phones are common but candid public talk about politics is not. Demonstrators use text messaging to mobilize followers, dodge authorities and swarm quickly to protest sites. Candidates organizing for the region's limited elections use text services to call supporters to the polls or slyly circulate candidate slates in countries that supposedly ban political groupings. And through it all, anonymous activists blast their adversaries with thousands of jokes, insults and political limericks. [...] At about 40 cents per missive, text messaging can be an expensive way to mobilize the masses, but the Gulf countries are lightly populated and afloat on record oil revenue. With political debate at a fever pitch this year, many of the region's well-heeled activists find it hard to resist the chance to compose their own uncensored statements and deliver their political wisdom to targeted audiences. [...] Text messaging is only the latest in a wave of border-hopping communication technologies to rewire patterns of Arab dissent during the past 15 years. Saudi exiles and Islamic activists waged an underground war of faxed pamphlets during the early and mid-1990s. Satellite television channels transformed the images and ideas available to Arab viewers during the same period. More recently, CDs, DVDs and the World Wide Web have dominated underground political publishing in the Gulf. As each new technology has spread, the region's authoritarian governments have tried to fight back. They have sent censors to license fax machines and block dissident Web sites, and they have pushed government-friendly investors to buy and manage satellite channels. But the Gulf's monarchies have not yet figured out whether or how to control text message channels.”
[Washington Post]

Life During Wartime: A Soldier's Portfolio [GQ Magazine]: March, 2005

“When The United States went to war two years ago this month, the Pentagon decided to embed an unprecedented number of journalists and photojournalists with fighting units. And that’s been our primary window into what’s happened in Iraq: through the lenses of guys who were tagging along, on the outside, caught between observer and belligerent. But meanwhile the war in Iraq was being documented another way as well. For the first time in the history of combat—thanks to inexpensive digital cameras and flash drives and a preponderance of laptops—every airman, marine, seaman, was a photographer. And they have produced a remarkable, constantly evolving portrait of war.

These photographs have altered history. Without them, we may never have known about Abu Ghraib; the families of soldiers may never have had as vital a sense of life on the ground. With this in mind, GQ decided to ask servicemen, including military photographers, for their pictures of the war. A deluge of images came pouring in—more than 10,000 photographs from more than 1,000 photographers—from soldiers who had recorded their experience but had no outlet for it. Together, these photographs represent a more intimate, more realistic, more extraordinary portrait of America’s Iraq experience than we’ve seen before. And it’s our chance to witness the war through the eyes of the men and women who have lived it.”
[GQ Magazine: Life During Wartime]

Crisis Pictures: March, 2005

“Current news images of Iraq excluded from the mainstream press. Updated daily.”
[Crisis Pictures]

Virtual Reality Therapy to Alleviate Post-Traumatic Stress: March 23, 2005

“Joseph Blythe settled into the couch in the psychologist’s office, slipped on a pair of high-tech goggles, took hold of the joystick and within a few seconds was transported through time and distance back to Iraq. He walked briskly along the maze-like urban streets, scanning the rooftops for friend or foe, passing by bombed-out cars, listening to the roar of choppers flying past the palm trees. As he reached an alley, Blythe heard the whoosh of a bullet going past his head and flinched. ”That was scary,“ he said. Blythe, a 25-year-old medic who spent eight months with the U.S. Marine Corps in Fallujah during its most turbulent period in 2004, is among the first to test a new virtual-reality system that the military hopes will help servicemen and women suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The idea behind the treatment is counterintuitive. It forces the troops to do the last thing they want to do: relive the experience. By confronting a make-believe Iraq, military scientists hope, patients will be able to assert better control over their memories. The intent is to stop the nightmares, outbursts of aggression and other readjustment issues that afflict many returning Marines, soldiers and sailors.

As the fighting in Iraq enters its third year, the U.S. military is grappling with what threatens to become a mental-health crisis in the armed forces. A New England Journal of Medicine study published this year estimated that one of every six Army soldiers returning from the war zone experiences major depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder. Many others, such as Blythe, report milder symptoms. ”Our minds aren’t made to process that much death,“ he said. ”Whoever goes to Iraq and comes back and says they have no problems is either in denial or is lying.“ The virtual-reality experiment is among the most innovative efforts the government is launching. Among others: military-sponsored support groups for returning fighters, a mock house at a rehabilitation center to teach wounded troops to care for themselves before going home, combat-stress units to counsel personnel on the ground, and psychological questionnaires to earlier identify problems among returning troops. Although the virtual-reality program is a relatively new idea, military doctors were impressed with results they saw when it was used with survivors of the World Trade Center attack.”
[Washington Post]

Trial By Television: March 28, 2005

“Twenty minutes to showtime and studio technicians are loading the tape for transmission to Baghdad when mortars thud outside. Four hit the lawn, three hit the motorway, carving craters but causing no casualties. The staff resume work, unfazed by the latest assault on the televison station. Aired twice a day, Terrorism in the Grip of Justice is a popular reality show but those firing 62mm mortars do not like it and have made the Mosul headquarters of the state channel Al-Iraqiya arguably the most dangerous posting in broadcasting. With watchtowers at the gate, sandbags on the roof and American soldiers patrolling the corridors, the two-storey building resembles a fortress, but that has not stopped insurgents from bombing, kidnapping and murdering the Iraqis who work inside.

”I don't think they like the programme very much,“ says the station's director, Ghazi Faisal, 52, with monumental understatement. Most of the staff have fled but their boss remains, a mix of resignation, defiance and pride. He does not stop munching his kebab when the mortars land. ”I'm the terrorists' most wanted man in Mosul.“ Launched in January, the one-hour programme features captured insurgents confessing to a variety of alleged crimes and vices, including pornography and booze. Cowed and crestfallen, they admit attacking the security forces and raping and beheading civilians. The impact has been electric. Al-Iraqiya was once widely scorned as a dull Iraqi government mouthpiece; all that changed in January when Mosul started feeding the confessions to the main studio in Baghdad, giving the network a national primetime hit. Iraqis switch on their televisions at midday and 9pm to catch the latest confessions, which are then debated in homes, offices, taxis and cafes. Akin to Jerry Springer-meets-Newsnight, it is the government's most effective propaganda against a rebellion still raging two years after a US-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.”
[Guardian]

Military Videos: March, 2005

“To download the videos below, you'll need to have a Bit Torrent client installed first. If you have trouble playing the video, you probably need the DivX codec also. Some or all of these videos feature combat related footage which may contain profanity or other non-work or child suitable content. Viewer discretion is advised.”
[Military Videos]

Navy Seals Sue Associated Press Over Photos: Dec. 28, 2004

“Six Navy SEALs and two of their wives filed a lawsuit against The Associated Press and one of its reporters Tuesday for allegedly revealing their identities in photos published in early December, according to a press release from the plaintiffs. The complaint, filed in California Superior Court, alleges that AP reporter Seth Hettena obtained a photograph in a personal Web site maintained by one of the wives of the Navy SEALs, which contains personal photographs. […] Hettena allegedly removed photos from that site and published them on Dec. 4, 2004, in a story stating that the pictures ”could be“ the earliest evidence of possible prisoner abuse in Iraq, the plaintiffs contend. The SEALs argue that the pictures ”actually depict special warfare operators’ standard procedures during covert operations. The Iraqis shown being captured in the photographs were leaders of anti-coalition attacks and Saddam loyalists.“ […]

”There was no need for the AP to publish the faces of the SEALs,“ Huston, the Morrison & Foerster partner who is heading the plaintiffs’ legal team, said in a statement. ”They added nothing to the value of the story. In fact, the SEALs showed more respect for the insurgents and terrorists that they were apprehending by obscuring their faces than the AP did for the Navy SEALs who were in Iraq risking their lives,“ he added. Since the photos were released, they have been published widely in the Arab Press, including on Al Jazeera, the plaintiffs claim. They are requesting injunctive relief, to preclude republishing the photographs, to preclude the publication of additional unpublished photographs, and to preclude the publication of personal photos by the Navy wife whose site was invaded, such as her wedding photos.”
[Editor & Publisher, via Reuters]

Media Coverage of the War in Iraq [American University]: March, 2005

“Many media outlets have self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war.  Many journalists said vigorous discussions about what, how and where to publish were conducted, in an attempt to balance fair reporting with audience sensitivities. In addition, journalists used their Internet sites to post material different from what was printed in newspapers or broadcast on TV or radio programs. Nearly one-third of news outlets used their Web sites to disseminate materials online that were not first published or broadcast elsewhere by the organization. In most cases reporters and editors posted additional information online such as photographic essays, extended interviews and behind-the-scenes reporter accounts. These are some of the conclusions from research conducted by American University School of Communication professors MJ Bear and Jane Hall.  More than 200 American and international journalists completed the anonymous, online survey in September and October 2004. Journalists were asked about coverage from March 2003 through September 2004.  While the research covered events from the beginning of the conflict through the first 15 months of the occupation, it focused primarily on decision-making during major events such as the release of the Abu Ghraib prison photographs and the images showing the deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah.

The study surveyed reporters, photographers, producers and managers involved in their organization’s coverage of Iraq. News personnel were e-mailed a link to the online survey; those who completed it in its entirety are counted in the results.  Respondents also identified themselves by audience geography. They were asked to indicate whether their audience was primarily from the U.S. or if their coverage was targeted to an international region such as: the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa or Eastern Europe. Respondents said several incidents sparked newsroom debates concerning the impact of publishing graphic photographs or detailed information about death and torture.  In most instances news managers self-censored coverage by choosing to run less-graphic images or putting details inside the paper and not on front pages. The survey reached a high percentage of journalists who were on the ground. Thirty-five percent of all respondents, 73 people, reported being in Iraq or in a surrounding country during the war and its aftermath.  About half that group said they were embedded with the U.S. military during all or part of their coverage.”
[American University School of Communication]
[Survey Responses]

Study: Media Self-Censored Some Iraq Coverage: March 19, 2005

“Many media outlets self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion because of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content, according to a survey of more than 200 journalists by American University’s School of Communications. […] The study, released Friday, also determined that ”vigorous discussions“ about what and where to publish information and images were conducted at media outlets and, in many cases, journalists posted material online that did not make it to print. One of the most significant findings was ”the amount of editing that went into content after it was gathered but before it was published,“ the study stated. Of those who reported from Iraq, 15% said that on one or more occasions their organizations edited material for publication and they did not believe the final version accurately represented the story. Of those involved in war coverage who were in newsrooms and not in Iraq, 20% said material was edited for reasons other than basic style and length. Some 42% of those polled said they were discouraged from showing photographic images of dead Americans, while 17% said they were prohibited. Journalists were also discouraged from showing pictures of hostages, according to 36% of respondents, while only 3% reported being prohibited from showing them. […]

Nearly one-third of news outlets used their Web sites to disseminate materials that were not first published or broadcast elsewhere by the organization, the survey said. In most cases, the Web sites were used not to run material censored from print but to take advantage of the virtually limitless space the Net offers for photographic essays, extended interviews, and behind-the-scenes reporter accounts. Although the questions covered events from the beginning of the war through September 2004 — the first 15 months of the occupation — it focused primarily on decision-making during major events such as the release of the Abu Ghraib prison photographs and the images showing the deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah. Respondents said several incidents sparked newsroom debates concerning the impact of publishing graphic photographs or detailed information about death and torture. In most instances, news managers self-censored coverage by choosing to run less-graphic images or putting details inside the paper and not on front pages. […]

”As with any death, we tried to make sure the pictures were as ‘tasteful’ as possible — not much blood or gore,“ one anonymous respondent wrote. ”We ran a front page picture of the four dead contractors in Fallujah, for instance, but from a greater distance than some newspapers, so the bodies were not immediately distinct as corpses. Even so, we drew a large amount of criticism from readers.“ Wrote another: ”We published a press release issued by the kidnappers of American Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia, which included images of his beheading. It was hotly debated in the newsroom and resulted in dozens of e-mails, letters and phone calls from readers around the country; surprisingly, all but a handful approved of our use of the images, we published an editor’s note on Page 1 warning readers of the images on an inside page. The photos were run in black-and-white, far smaller than actual size.“ ”Our duty is to report as vividly and accurately as we can what is happening in Iraq. But we have to make difficult judgments about some of the shocking raw footage we or agencies film of death, horrific injuries, hostage murders filmed by hostage takers, etc,“ another journalist wrote back. ”We want to show what is happening, but also to avoid causing unnecessary shock and distress to viewers or encouraging further brutality by hostage takers. It is a difficult task.“ […]

29% said their Internet reports allowed more comprehensive coverage. Only 7% said their Internet reports allowed them to publish material deemed not appropriate for other media. The survey found that there were only limited in-house restrictions in the type of interviews conducted. When journalists who were In Iraq were asked if their editors or managers limited interviews, 92% said they had no limits at all and only two respondents said they were limited in publishing interviews with Iraqi military personnel, Iraqi insurgents, or other journalists. Among respondents who were in Iraq, 27% said their organization had prior rules in place about what they would or would not publish, and 31% of those who were based in newsrooms said their organization had prior rules. Coverage sensitivity focused more on the type of images published. Among those who did not have such rules in place, 39% reported being unable to show images of dead Americans at some point, while 22% said they were not allowed to show images of hostages at times. ”There is an unspoken rule against publishing images that would be extremely horrifying such as a bloody stump on an amputee or a mangled corpse,“ one respondent wrote. [...]

Other anonymous comments from those who took part in the survey: ”We went in with no ground rules except those of the military, which prohibited photos that would show the faces of captives, and also which discouraged photos that would ID wounded or dead U.S. troops. That said, I think we knew that HIGHLY explicit photos of gore were not likely to get published. The editors were eager for powerful photos though, and went further than many U.S. media outlets in that regard.“ ”Our rules are against anything which might offend our audience, i.e. we are in the realm of taste and decency, which is difficult to quantify. … on the one hand, I don’t want, say, my kids to turn on the TV after tea and see some of the things I have seen in the field. But on the other hand, the effect of this is to sanitize the coverage, and glamorize the conflict.“ ”An American soldier who was injured during combat in 2003 was photographed alive, but before he died. After the soldier died, the paper ran the picture of him in his still-injured state. It caused a stir.“ ”We delayed or didn’t even publish lots of information on which we had contradictory or incomplete reports.“
[Editor & Publisher]

“Ramadi Madness”: Scene by Scene: March 13, 2005

“The 26-minute, 47-second video is a compilation of scenes in Iraq captured by members of the West Palm Beach-based Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment. The scenes range from routine to poignant to macabre.

Scene 1: Titled 'The Truck Incident'
Nighttime outdoors. Soldiers shine lights into the driver-side window of a truck. The driver is dead. Soldier moves driver's hand and says, ”Hold on, I'm going to make him say 'Hi.' “

Scene 2: Untitled
Two soldiers pretend to choke a third soldier with a plastic handcuff.

Scene 3: Titled 'Super Special Skills'
Daytime outdoors. A wristwatch shows that it is Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2003. Off-screen voice makes fun of superior officers on-screen. Soldiers joke about friendly fire.

Scene 4: Untitled
Nighttime outdoors. Soldiers on patrol. Off-screen voice says, ”This is me and my team.“

Scene 5: Titled 'Newman and His Toy'
Nighttime indoors. Soldier shows off his firearm for the camera. [...]”
[Palm Beach Post]

Faces of the Fallen: March, 2005

Artists' tribute to the lives lost in Iraq & Afghanistan.

[Faces of the Fallen]

Re-branding America in the Middle East: March, 2005

“Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell, concerned about rising anti-Americanism abroad, hired Madison Ave. maven Charlotte Beers to blitz the Middle East with pro-American advertising and PR campaigns. The goal, Powell said, was nothing less than to ‘’rebrand American foreign policy.’’ Beers responded with gusto: During her 17-month tenure, the new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs oversaw the launching of everything from a monthly pro-American, Arabic-language newsmagazine called Hi, to be distributed around the Middle East, to a series of TV spots featuring smiling Muslim Americans. But Beers’s PR campaign turned out to be a PR disaster. ‘’The US can’t be sold as a brand,’ like Cheerios,’’ wrote the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board. To Naomi Klein, a columnist at The Nation and the author of ‘’No Logo,’’ Beers’s efforts echoed the propaganda efforts of Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. ‘’It’s no coincidence,’’ wrote Klein in the Los Angeles Times in 2002, ‘’that the political leaders most preoccupied with branding themselves and their parties were also allergic to democracy and diversity.’’ Beers left before many of her programs even got off the ground. Yet Beers’s failure, far from discrediting the idea of ‘’branding’’ a country, stands out as an exception. The last few years have seen an explosion of ‘’nation-branding,’’ shorthand for coordinated government efforts to manage a country’s image, whether to improve tourism, investment, or even foreign relations. Firms specializing in nation-branding have sprouted up around the world.”
[Boston Globe]

Iraqi-American Artist Leila Kubba: Mar., 2005

“Iraqi-American artist Leila Kubba returned to Iraq last year for the first time in 25 years. Her deep impressions from that trip are now recorded in her latest exhibit of paintings. ”New Beginnings“ is on display at a small gallery in Washington, D.C. Kubba, born in Iraq to an American mother and Iraqi father, says she grew up seeing each culture through the eyes of the other. As a child in Iraq, Kubba says she was influenced by the colorful and ornate geometric art and architecture around her. She later studied art in England and then the United States. Her works contrast scenes of Iraqi daily life in bold colors, with deep purples and grays that suggest American soldiers alert in the background.”
[Listen to National Public Radio report]

Middle East Gets First Comic Superheroes: Mar. 7, 2005

“Aya, Zein, Jalila and Rakan are the heroes of Egypt-based AK Comics’ Middle East Heroes. The comic, published in both Arabic and English, sees them entrusted with keeping the region out of the hands of evil following 55 years of war between two unnamed superpowers. […] Middle East Heroes, in keeping with many popular Western comic books, has a message of good and evil, says Mr Nashar. ”They have their own ways and their own villains to encounter, and eventually succeed through hardships.“ He added that his superheroes go through turmoil - and either overcome it and show their best characteristics, or fail and become villains. Among them is Aya, whose father was murdered in front of her, and her mother blamed - effectively leaving her to grow up as an orphan. She is adopted by an underground fighting organisation that turns her into the Princess Of Darkness. Another characters are Zein, known as The Last Pharaoh, who was transported from Ancient Egypt in a time capsule; Jalila, who developed superhuman powers after surviving a nuclear explosion; and Rakan, a warrior with a magic sword from ancient Arabia. What is notable about Middle East Heroes is that the female models are at least as powerful as their male counterparts. Jalila is most powerful character in terms of abilities. […] Meanwhile many of the stories reflect events in the modern world in this key region, especially the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The heroes’ enemies include the United Liberation Force and the Zios Army, who are ”still clinging to their extreme views“. Both enemies want complete control the City of All Faiths.”
[BBC]

Jana Prikryl: “Abu Ghraib: A Global Family Portrait”: Mar., 2005

“The images of prisoner abuse, captured between October and December 2003, are hideously magnetic because they are as bizarre as they are sexual and violent. There are the relatively straightforward images of cruelty—a soldier winding back his arm as he prepares to pummel a knot of prisoners; or a detainee cornered by an attack dog; or, with a certain flair for narrative, pair of before-and-after shots that show, first, a naked prisoner with a thigh wound pooling into a red puddle on the concrete floor, and, second, almost the same scene, but on the floor a noticeably larger puddle. And there are the sexual shots—naked prisoners posed in attitudes of fellatio; naked prisoners whose erections are smirked at by a female guard trying to look as macho as possible, with a cigarette hanging from her lips. [...] Is this merely because we expect the ideal soldier to be brutal and aggressive—and whether that brutality occurs on the battlefield with a gun or in a jail with a camera, we hardly care? Our perplexity over this basic distinction means something fundamental has been lost from our understanding of Abu Ghraib. In conflating the Abu Ghraib violence with the ”cleaner“ violence of ordinary warfare, we’ve been able to avoid asking how the war on terror has affected us—or, if you like, infected us.r all, the violence of the abuse, combined with the theoretical-symbolic violence of photography itself, lends new meaning to the term ”theater of combat.“ In fact, the soldiers’ conduct maps with eerie precision onto the literature of photojournalism.”
[Believer Magazine]

Wrist Video For Israeli Troops: Mar. 7, 2005

Israeli “troops are now wearing gear that Dick Tracy would be proud of: tiny video screens, worn on the wrist, that display video shot by unmanned airplanes. Similar screens have been in use for close to a year in the Israeli military's attack helicopters, helping pilots identify and strike Palestinian targets within seconds. The technology, also used in tanks and armored vehicles, was a closely guarded secret until the company that developed it offered reporters a rare glimpse at the system this week. [...] the communications system has ”shortened tremendously“ the amount of time it takes to identify and strike a target. ”Before, it was minutes -- 10 to 12 minutes. Now it's a matter of seconds,“ he said.

The Israeli army declined to comment about the new technology. But Israeli security officials have acknowledged a greatly improved ability to carry out air strikes to the point that targeted fighters no longer have time to flee, in contrast to the early days of fighting in late 2000. They cite improvements in many areas, not any single technology. The screen being field-tested by a limited number of foot soldiers is about 3 inches wide, and weighs just a few ounces. Code-named V-Rambo, it's attached to the wrist by a velcro strap. The LCD screens display color video beamed directly from drones in real time at 30 frames per second -- the same rate as broadcast TV. Attack helicopters have been fitted with 5-inch screens. The Video Receiver systems also include small reception units that are installed on the vehicles and helicopters or carried in soldiers' vests.”

The company also showed off a system resembling a video game that allows soldiers to control unmanned ground vehicles. The green console has a small flat screen and two joysticks, one on each side. One joystick controls the vehicle, while the other controls the items on the vehicle, such as its cameras. The computer screen shows other information, including video footage from drones and detailed maps of the battlefield. The technology is expected to be part of the Gladiator unmanned ground vehicles being developed by the U.S. Marines. The company announced the Gladiator contract, which includes partners Carnegie Mellon University and United Defense Industries, last month.“
[Wired] [Tadiran]