CCTP 506
Emily Fuerst, Yong Lee, Sagorika Sen, Wanyu Zheng
Georgetown University
04/29/2013
Abstract
Throughout the semester, our group has collaboratively worked together to de-black box the
technology, war dogs. The following paper examines military working dogs and the contextual
components that surround this technology. We aspire to unpack this technology so we can
enlighten the general public of their existence and the beneficial attributes they provide to our
military. In order to fully understand all aspects surrounding military working dogs, we used two
primary research methods. We conducted several interviews and researched credible sources
online. We interviewed the general public to understand their overall knowledge on the topic and
interviewed subject matter experts to learn about the training methods, treatment and lifestyle of
these animals. Currently there are 2,700 military working dogs serving our military, many of
these dogs are deployed in warzones such as Afghanistan (Bumiller). The Defense Department
currently classifies war dogs as equipment but many advocates believe they should be reclassified as canine members of the armed forces. Our objective is to unpack this technology to
improve our knowledge on the subject so we are able to share our research with the public. By
creating public awareness, war dogs will receive the appreciation and respect they deserve which
could potentially accelerate the re-classification of these animals.
Introduction
Military working dogs also referred to as war dogs have served and supported our
military in several ways throughout history. Presently all branches of the military use these
animals to assist our soldiers in various missions overseas. Even though war dogs have steadily
served along our armed forces throughout the years, the majority of the general population are
unaware of the benefits these canines provide our military. We chose war dogs as our technology
to de-blackbox in order to better understand how these animals support our troops. Since war
dogs participate in several missions overseas, many technologies have been designed to enhance
the animal’s capabilities and to protect them during warfare. Tactical body armor, wireless
surveillance cameras, radio communications and extensive training are all examples of tools used
to complement these courageous canines. By unpacking this technology, we aspire to share our
knowledge with the general public so these animals receive the respect and appreciation they
deserve.
In order to reach this goal, we took several approaches to research. We tested our
hypothesis by creating a survey and interviewing the general public. Then we focused our
research on bibliographic references and interviewed several subject matter experts so we could
ultimately design various message channels to share our discoveries. To fully understand all
aspects of military working dogs, we strived to learn about their historical presence, whether
there are political and social circumstances surrounding the animals and lastly the technical
aspects of the technologies that are designed to assist these animals in their missions. We began
this journey by researching their historical background within the military.
Context and Content
One of the most surprising facts of data we learned throughout this project was military
working dogs historical presence. Before the United States began to utilize these animals, many
other countries used military dogs in combat. France, Belgium, Russia and Germany used war
dogs in the early 1900s, “to warn of enemy attacks, find the injured, and to carry supplies and
messages during combat” (Sesana). When the United States learned about this tactic in 1942, the
US Army developed the organization “K-9 Corps” also referred to as “Dogs for Defense” and
began training war dogs in Front Royal, Virginia (Military Working Dog History). It is important
to note that the missions and responsibilities of these animals have transformed throughout time.
Throughout our research we learned that after the Vietnam War, the US Army’s K-9
Corps program was handed over to the Air Force where life was vastly different for the dogs.
Sharon Weinberger, a writer for BBC wrote “…Air Force, which used them to patrol missile
fields in the United States. Those dogs were used to being guided on leashes, living in a airconditioned kennels and working limited shifts: a far cry from a war zone” (Weinberger). It
appears the atmosphere the animals lived in along with their treatment changed once the program
shifted to the Air Force. The transformations military dogs have gone through in regards to
trainings, responsibilities and their treatment led us to the belief that this technology is not
considered linear.
The responsibilities of military dogs have evolved rapidly throughout history. During
wars such as Vietnam they were primarily used for their smelling and hearing abilities to detect
the enemy, for sentry duty, scout dogs, the protection of military bases and to scout out the
perimeters (Harris). However in 2007, the role, appreciation and desire for military dogs changed
drastically when they realized the canines could detect improvised explosive devices (IEDS),
“better than even the most advanced technologies” (Harris). This discovery led to a higher
demand for the dogs and their training procedures were altered in order to train more bomb
sniffing dogs.
The treatment of these animals has evolved as well. Before Robby’s Law was passed in
2000, war dogs were often euthanized after they served (Epatko). Robby’s Law ensured that the
animals were adopted after serving and that war dogs were only euthanized if they were deemed
too aggressive/dangerous or if the dog was severely injured (Epatko). It was shocking to our
group that only thirteen years ago, the United States realized how cruel and unjust it was to
euthanize or leave these animals behind after they have sacrificed their lives while saving so
many of our soldiers. Fortunately for these courageous canines, the waiting list to adopt a retired
military dog ranges from 300 to 400 potential owners (Sesana).
Another aspect we considered was the political circumstances that surrounded this
technology. A major debate currently exists whether war dogs should be considered equipment
or soldiers. Currently the Defense Department classifies military working dogs as surplus
equipment, however many advocates believe this needs to be changed (Rizzo). These animals are
sacrificing their lives to protect and assist our soldiers, yet we classify them in the same category
as a helmet. In 2012, advocates were excited when the The Canine Members of the Armed
Forces Act was introduced. This act, “…proposed reclassifying military dogs as Canine
Members of the Armed Forces, simplified the adoption process for retired military dogs and
directed the military to set up a program for retired dogs’ veterinary care, at no cost to the
taxpayer, and it allowed for the secretary of defense to recognize military dogs killed in action or
for performing courageous acts of service in the line of duty” (Rosenthal). However when this
legislation was eventually passed, the re-classification of military dogs was not included within
the bill (Rosenthal). As a group we hope in the near future that military working dogs receive the
respect they deserve and are re-classified as canine members of the armed forces.
When considering whether this technology is grand, we could not decide on a yes or no
response. In one aspect, war dogs are grand because they help protect our soldiers in the line of
duty. One article we came across throughout our research described war dogs as therapeutic to
soldiers while they are overseas in war zones (Russo). The article discusses how having these
animals on military bases brings comfort to the soldiers during a time of stress, fear and anxiety.
However one aspect of this technology that is not grand is when military working dogs
are injured or killed during combat. Since these animals are ordered to enter into dangerous
areas, there is always the possibility that they will be injured or killed. During our research we
were unable to find substantial data on the amount of war dogs that are injured yearly. Hopefully
the reason we were not able to access this data is because the numbers are so low.
Lastly within our context related research we discovered that this form of technology is
extremely efficient. It is currently estimated that a military working dog saves around 150
soldier lives throughout each dog’s service (Sesana). This statement alone proves that this
technology is not only imperative for our military to utilize but is also very effective.
One of the primary ways war dogs save our soldier’s lives is through the detection of
improvised explosive devices (IED). The war with IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in
the loss of many US soldiers. Sharon Weinberger wrote in 2012, “Over the past six years, the
Pentagon has spent over $18 billion trying to find ways to detect and neutralize roadside bombs –
the leading killer of US troops in Afghanistan – by investing in everything from better mine
detectors to newfangled devices that shoot beams of energy” (Weinberger). JIEDDO is a
government agency who is in charge of conquering the war on IEDs. After spending billions of
dollars to discover ways to detect IEDs, JIEDDO announced, “that the single greatest force in
detecting IEDs was indisputably a dog and its handler” (Frankel). Since dogs have an impeccable
sense of smell, they are able to sniff out and detect these explosives.
There are various technical aspects within this technology that are important to examine.
War dogs endure extensive training before they are deployed. Along with training, many
different types of vests have been designed to either protect these animals or to improve the
animal’s capabilities during missions. Throughout our project, we discovered through online
research and interviews with subject matter experts that the training process for these animals is
rather challenging.
The primary breeds used are German and Dutch shepherds and Belgian malinois. These
breeds are prevalent among war dogs since they are recognized as “very aggressive, very smart,
very loyal and very athletic”(Miles). In order for the dog to be able to complete the rigorous
training procedures, the canine needs to demonstrate that it possesses these traits. Once the dogs
are chosen, they are sent to Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio Texas to begin training.
We interviewed John Hoover, who has been a dog handler for over 23 years and currently
works with an Explosive Detection Dog in Afghanistan for the government. He explained that
trainers typically work with the dog for 8 hours a day or for our 40 hours a week and that most
training schools last around 12 weeks (Hoover). Mr. Hoover also discussed some of the tasks the
canines are trained for, “Military dogs are trained to detect contraband and explosives. They Can
also be trained for handler protection and suspect and criminal apprehension” (Hoover). Lastly
we felt it was important to inquire the estimated costs of this technology. Mr. Hoover explained
that once a dog is trained, the estimated cost of the trained dog can vary between $10,000 and
$15,000 (Hoover). Since there are several levels of training, the dog will be more expensive if it
is trained to perform an array of jobs.
Many technologies have been designed to improve and enhance the dog’s capabilities
during missions. There are several different types of vests war dogs wear to protect the animals
and to assist the animals during various missions. Some of the vests are designed to hold
infrared, night-vision cameras and audio communications that allow the dog handler to
communicate commands to the dog (War Dog). We were fortunate to interview Jim Slater, the
founder of the company K-9 Storm which manufactures the vests for military and police dogs.
Mr. Slater informed us that it is extremely important for the vests to be light weight and customfit for each dog which provides war dogs with full mobility (Slater). Since military working dogs
are often in war zones, many of the vests are designed to safeguard the animals from injury.
Many heavy armor vests are designed to prevent rifle rounds, edged weapons and handguns from
injuring the dogs (Slater).
Throughout our online research and interviews with experts, we were able to understand
the content and contextual components of military working dogs. We were surprised to discover
the different social and political controversies surrounding these animals and were truly fortunate
to interview an array of experts on the topic. The different research approaches we used
supported our overall mission to de-black box war dogs.
Research Approach
To unpack our technology, we aspired to collaboratively understand the context and
content surrounding war dogs by using several approaches within our research. We began by
surfing the web for credible references that discussed the historical, social and political
components involved with these animals. By researching government websites, mainstream news
articles such as CNN and BBC and websites focusing on K-9 military organizations we were
able to develop a solid knowledge base on war dogs. Before reaching out to experts on military
working dogs, we wanted to have personal insight on the topic which would assist us in
developing well composed questions for our experts.
The interviews with subject matter experts were by far the most informative and effective
method within our research. By interviewing K-9 military trainers, we received terrific insight
about the extensive training process the dogs undergo. It was very difficult to find detailed
information online about the various vests the dogs wear. Our interview with the founder of K-9
Storm (company who manufactures the vests) helped our group understand the different
technical properties within the vests. By interviewing experts and collaboratively researching
information online, we were able to de-black box war dogs and the technologies that assist them.
Component Summaries
Online Presence
Since one of our main goals is improve awareness of war dogs with the public, it was essential
for us to have several online message channels. We created a Wordpress Blog, a Tumbler
account, a Facebook and Twitter page. Our blog, War Dogs shares the research we have
compiled throughout the semester. Many of our blog posts discuss the interviews we conducted
with subject matter experts. Our blog displays our Twitter activity on the home page to
encourage viewers to follow us on Twitter. Our Twitter presence proved to be extremely
beneficial since we were able to connect with K-9 military dog trainers and handlers. After
tweeting back and forth with a training location on the West coast, Vohn Liche Kennels, we set
up a phone interview with one of their trainers. When we had upcoming interviews, we updated
our social media outlets to alert our followers. Overall our blog is the most informative channel
for our online presence and will contain all of our project deliverables.
Poster
As a group, we were very pleased with the outcome of the technical poster Wanyu designed. Our
poster contained vibrant colors to draw in audience members while encompassing an array of
information on our topic. Along with the poster, we designed a post card that included our
contact information, links to our online presence and brief information on war dogs. Both the
poster and postcard were essential elements of our project since they provided a visual
representation on military working dogs.
Interviews
Our interviews with subject matter experts were extremely beneficial to our overall research.
While interviewing the public at Georgetown waterfront, we came across a man named Warren
Getler. He is an ex-military journalist who was extremely knowledgeable on our topic and
agreed to a video interview. He gave us great insight on why the military uses German
Shepherds as a primary breed. We also conducted an interview with a military and police dog
trainer who works for Vohn Liche Kennels. The trainer, Jessie discussed the various training
methods used along with basic information as to how long the trainings are and the traits they
look for in a military working dog. Another significant interview we conducted was with Jim
Slater, the founder of K-9 storm, a company that manufactures the tactical vests war dogs often
wear. He explained some of the technical aspects of the vest while providing us with a better
understanding of why the vests are important for the animals to have. Overall these interviews
provided our group with important information surrounding war dogs and assisted us in
unpacking this technology.
Video
We created a video to provide a visual representation of our research. The video begins by
illustrating our assumption that the general population lacks knowledge on military working
dogs. After showing several of our interviews with civilians, our video highlights some of our
interviews with subject matter experts such as Warren Getler, an ex-military journalist. Most
importantly the video lists popular misconceptions we have about war dogs and dogs we
consider as our pets. The video exposes these misconceptions and then sums up our project by
showcasing important facts about military dogs.
Survey
We created an online survey to acquire the pre-existing attitudes and beliefs of the general public
on military working dogs. The survey is designed to discover whether people are aware that
canines assist our troops overseas. The survey consists of 10 questions that are intended to reveal
people’s knowledge on war dogs, along with the different levels training and some of the
technologies they use. We chose to set up this survey online in order to reach a larger community
and to save paper. This survey will help our group test the hypothesis, that the majority of the
general public is unaware of this technology’s existence and the numerous benefits they provide
our military.
Conclusion
After de-black boxing military working dogs, our entire group has a newfound respect
and appreciate for these animals that we aspire to share with the public. It was apparent
throughout our interviews with the public that many people lack awareness that these courageous
canine’s serve our military. If more people learned about the various benefits war dogs provide
our soldiers, the re-classification of these animals from equipment to canine members of armed
forces could be passed sooner. This technology has assisted our military for several generations
and we are confident that war dogs will continue to serve our military in the future. The various
jobs, the trainings and treatment of these animals has evolved throughout history. It will be
interesting to observe how military working dogs evolve in the future. As the demand for these
animal increases, more studies will be performed in order to discover new ways these animals
can help our soldiers overseas.
Bibliography
Bumiller, Elisabeth. "The Dogs of War: Beloved Comrades in Afghanistan." The New York
Times. N.p., 11 May 2011. Web. 18 Apr 2013.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/world/middleeast/12dog.html?_r=2&>.
Epatko, Larisa. "Military Working Dogs: What Happens After They Serve?." PBS Newshour.
PBS, 28 May 2012. Web. 14 Apr 2013.
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/military-working-dogs.html>.
Harris, William. "How War Dogs Work" 01 June 2011. HowStuffWorks.com.
<http://science.howstuffworks.com/war-dog.htm> 25 April 2013.
Hoover, John. E-mail Interview. 09 Apr 2013.
Miles, Donna. "Military Working Dogs." About.com US Military. American Forces Press
Service. Web. 25 Apr 2013.
<http://usmilitary.about.com/od/jointservices/a/militarydogs_2.htm>.
Rizzo, Jennifer. "When a Dog Isn't a Dog." CNN Security Clearance. N.p., 06 Jan 2012. Web. 20
Apr 2013. <http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/06/when-a-dog-isnt-a-dog/>.
Rosenthal, Cathy M.. "Animals Matter: Military Working Dogs Still Considered
"Equipment"." My SA: San Antonio's Home Page. N.p., 03 Apr 2013. Web. 19 Apr 2013.
<http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/life_columnists/cathy_m_rosenthal/article/Animals-MatterMilitary-working-dogs-still-4400607.php>.
Russo , Karen. "War Dogs: U.S. Soldiers Talk About the Comfort of Having Dogs With Their
Unit in Afghanistan." ABC News. N.p., 05 May 2011. Web. 13 Apr 2013.
<http://abcnews.go.com/International/war-dogs-us-soldiers-afghanistan-talk-comfortdogs/story?id=13537829>.
Sesana, Laura. “Military Working Dogs Today Have Long History of Heroism.” The
Washington Times. N.p. 11 January 2013. Web
<http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/world-ourbackyard/2013/jan/11/military-working-dogs-today/>
Slater, Jim. Phone Interview. 23 Apr. 2013.
"The Military Working Dog History." Military Working Dog Foundation, Inc.. U.S. Army
Quartermaster Museum, n.d. Web. 15 Apr 2013.
<http://www.militaryworkingdog.com/history/>.
"War Dog." HighTech Edge . N.p., 06 Jun 2011. Web. 23 Mar 2013. <http://www.hightechedge.com/war-dogs/10857/>.
Weinberger, Sharon. "Upgrading the Dogs of War."BBC. N.p., 31 Aug 2012. Web. 22 Mar 2013.
<http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120829-upgrading-the-dogs-of-war/1>.
Apendix A: Survey Rationale
One of major reasons we chose to de-black box war dogs as our technology, is because
we feel that the majority of the general population are unaware of the benefits and services they
provide our military. After walking around the Georgetown Waterfront, we asked several
pedestrians questions relating to military working dogs. The majority of their responses indicated
that the average person was semi-aware that this technology exists but was unclear as to what
their roles, responsibilities and the importance of a war dog was. This experience at the
waterfront led our group to the assumption that the general public knows very little about
military working dogs. In order to test our hypothesis that the general public is uninformed, we
created a survey with ten questions that are intended to discover each participant’s knowledge on
war dogs.
Throughout our research on the topic, we discovered several contextual components
which surround military working dogs. Among the questions, we touch upon a political
component by asking the survey participant if the war dogs should be classified as equipment or
as a canine member of the armed forces. This question is essential to include within our survey
since this controversy is stirring up a lot of disagreement and concerns between the Department
and Defense and advocates of war dogs. By including this question, it will give each participant
the change to provide their own opinion on the matter. Personally, we look forward to analyzing
the responses we receive with this particular question.
Since military working dogs have been serving our military throughout history, it was
important to include a question to see whether the public is aware that these canines have served
since World War 2. With this historical approach in mind, we also asked participants if they
knew a war dog was present when Navy SEALs took out the US’s most wanted terrorist, Osama
Bin Laden. By mentioning important historical dates such as this one, we hope that this question
will heighten our audience’s curiosity on the subject. This curiosity could lead to participants
researching war dogs or connecting with our various message channels to learn more about these
amazing animals. Throughout our research, we found it shocking that military war dogs were
euthanized after serving up until 2000 when Robby’s Law was passed. Fortunately there are
several adoption agencies now that match the retired war dog with a suitable family. This
transformation from euthanizing to adoption is an important element within our research. We felt
it was important to discover whether our participants agree or disagree that the retired dogs
should be euthanized. Following that question, we asked participants whether or not they would
consider adopting a retired war dog. Along with contextual components, we wanted to discover
through our survey if are participants are familiar with any technologies that assist war dogs with
their different missions and responsibilities.
The online presence will also allow us to evaluate the results in a more effective and
efficient manner. We hope that the results of the survey indicate that the general public is
oblivious to this technology. This will allow our group the opportunity to truly make a difference
among our community by sharing our research on the benefits and services war dogs provide to
our armed forces.
Apendix B: Survey
Our survey can be accessed online using this link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/339B65J
1. There are specific breeds of dogs that are trained to serve our military.
a. True
b. False
2. Military working dogs have served our military forces since World War 2.
a. True
b. False
3. When the Navy SEALs raided and took out Osama Bin Laden in 2011, a war dog was
present.
a. True
b. False
4. Military Working Dogs are just soldier’s pets.
a. True
b. False
5. A military working dog is currently the best technology we have to detect Improvised
Explosive Devices.
a. True
b. False
6. Once a military working dog has finished their service, they should be euthanized.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Undecided
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
7. Military working dogs should continue to be classified as equipment, instead of being reclassified as canine members of the armed forces.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Undecided
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
8. I would adopt a military working dog after it is retired from duty.
a. True
b. False
9. Military working dogs have vests with infrared, night vision cameras.
a. True
b. False
10. Military working are an important component within our military’s defense.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Undecided
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree