Investments should target urban warfare.

Despite all the leaps and bounds the nation has made in defense technologies to claim military dominance, there is still one domain that has proven elusive: the urban battlefield.

After four years of fighting a counterinsurgency in the cities of Iraq, it has become clear that U.S. forces lack the systems needed to defeat a foe who dodges bullets by lurking amongst the populace.

Civilians, buildings, maze-like streets and other city factors blend to form a complex milieu that all but renders obsolete the radios, sensors, weapons and armor that were effective for warriors on the frontlines in conventional conflicts.

"Right now, it's difficult for us to see beyond the next building in a city. That's what we really need to do," says Duane Schattle, director of the joint urban operations office at Joint Forces Command. "We need to make major investments in our abilities to be able to see into the urban environment, and understand as much about the urban environment as we do in the open environment."

The defense budget has soared since the beginning of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there hasn't been a commensurate shift in funding for technologies in a counterinsurgency environment, says Stephen Kosiak, vice president for budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

"In terms of overall funding levels, there hasn't been anything like a dramatic shift away from conventional kinds of military capabilities to irregular kinds of military capabilities," he says.

In past wars, the United States invested heftier resources into the technologies that would help its military dominate in open battles at sea, in the air and on the ground. Some say that a similar amount of spending would help in the "three block war."

"How much did we spend in 40 years of the Cold War to dominate the open environment? Maybe that's what we need to be spending now in the next 40 years to dominate the urban environment, because that's where we're at, and that's where we're at for the future," says Schattle.

Spending on research and development is substantially higher than it was during the Cold War, says Kosiak. In the Defense Department's budget, R&D has proportionally increased more than any other account, he adds.

So why, then, have technologies not been as helpful in the current conflict? The reason is two-fold. Until the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the nation, so used to the "big wars" scenario, doubted that it would ever fight in urban areas for lengthy periods. Lacking a pressing need to prepare for a war that likely wouldn't materialize, the country focused its research on more traditional scenarios. Secondly, the tactical problems in the city environment are extremely difficult to solve, says Dan Fox, the joint urban operations office's science and technology lead.

"It's not just about the overhead imagery from a camera or satellite. It's about understanding this extremely complex environment, and the relationships and all the elements within it. That's the real challenge."

Fox says the scientific community is beginning to embrace the urban challenge. All the services' laboratories have begun initiatives. The Office of Naval Research and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, in particular, are developing sensors for detecting humans and objects inside buildings.

In five to eight years, these systems will provide operators with a handheld display that will show them where people armed with weapons and explosives are hiding inside a structure, he says.

But some doubt that investing in more capable devices will help in a conflict that demands a change in thinking and values.

"If we've learned anything from the catastrophe in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've learned that technology is not the solution to these problems," says Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus military reform project at the Center for Defense Information.

While technology may not be the silver bullet, it can still aid those who need better ways of conducting operations in the world's cities.

"Technology alone isn't going to win the war on terror, but it's going to make things a lot easier on the troops and make it easier for us to do our jobs," says 1st Lt. Daniel Zimmer, platoon leader with the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment of the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas.

Now that service members have been fighting in cities for several years, it seems prudent to put more monetary muscle behind the technologies that could help the U.S. military finally conquer the urban battlefield.

Please email your comments to [e-mail]