Army Value Added along the Way Ahead

2004 
Throughout military history, particularly American military history, a commitment to build and exploit technological advantages has remained constant. As in the past, today's military strategists remain fascinated with technology and the advantages it offers and continue to debate the precedence of technology over doctrine as the driver of military force evolution. The prevailing Transformation azimuth of senior U.S. defense strategists appears to be an extension of leveraging technology to be more precise in targeting, more lethal in effects, and less physically present in potential conflict areas. Standoff engagement is in, closing with the enemy is out; quick strike is in, deliberate action is out; shielding defensive capabilities is in, forward presence of large U.S. military forces, particularly ground forces, is out. The supported force of choice manages air and space platforms piloted from afar. Forces on the ground and at sea increasingly support one another. Key ground forces in conflict areas are "eyes-on" special operating and laser-designating detachments. Land-component forces chosen for lethal strikes are often highly tailorable Marine expeditionary units. U.S. military services are striving to be more expeditionary, to shed expensive "footprints" forward, strike from sanctuaries on an unlevel playing field, and project and retract more power more quickly and decisively. Opinions about the mix of service contributions before, during, and after potential conflicts are shifting. Roles and missions are changing among the services--some openly, others subtly. Competition among military services for Way-Ahead resources is increasing. Yet, successful efforts at real integration of service capabilities remain incomplete. The Army appears to be the most affected by current Transformation efforts because it is most often cited as needing reshaping and downsizing. Decoded, this means using "liberated" funding to increase other service capabilities. The questions are, What kind of Army does this country need? What unique and indispensable capability does the Army add to joint-interagency formations? Is this capability the centerpiece of the U.S. Army's Transformation effort? My purpose is not to debate the Way Ahead. What the Army envisions as a flexible air-ground team empowered by state-of-the-art technology and traditionally proven training regimens is basically on target. Rather, I see two issues that are critical to the future U.S. military component of national power: * How the U.S. military exploits information to sustain or regain peace in the future. * How, when, and where the U.S. military resorts to lethal means to resolve conflicts. These issues affect current military service reshaping, especially the Way Ahead. Both issues are fundamental to shaping the military, and there is much discussion about both. There is not much resolution about either, however, that would provide service-capability architects the specifications they need to build a sustainable, fully integrated joint force. The key to addressing these issues most responsibly and progressively is to accurately define the need for the capabilities the Army is to provide in the future. To leverage technological advantages, the military must know the desired outcomes it wants in relation to U.S. military participation in resolving conflicts around the world. The military should also know if one template for applying military power will fit the needs of all conflicts. The real challenge is to define and apply a new American way of war and build a military superior to all others, which would reduce risks. The U.S. military force should be so powerful and effective that potential adversaries would not want to face it. So, what mix of service capabilities is needed in this type evolution of U.S. military might? What is the Army's piece of the action to complete the puzzle? Informational Component the Key Defense industry capitalists recognize the dominant military means of the future as information technology (IT). …
    • Correction
    • Source
    • Cite
    • Save
    • Machine Reading By IdeaReader
    0
    References
    0
    Citations
    NaN
    KQI
    []