http://www.defenseone.com/sponsored/2016/01/expert-q-mapping-new-strategy-boots-ground/125075/?oref=NL
January 12, 2016 DRS Technologies
How the very nature of the U.S. ground force game is changing.
Brought to you by DRS Technologies
A resurgent Russia, a chaotic Middle East, the rise of ISIS and global terror — these are just a few of the threats that the U.S. military is up against when it comes to potential conflict, war, and boots on the ground operations.
And now, a new report from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) says that the military needs to do more to adopt a mindset of agility if it wants to win in wars of the future.
“Modern war is changing for our military leaders and troops,” says Paul Scharre, the report’s author and a Senior Fellow at CNAS. “It requires a level of agility, which means that your troops can adapt to changing events, understand the strategic ramifications of their actions, and be best equipped with the right tools for each mission.”
To better understand how the U.S. military’s ground game is changing, Scharre explained some of the biggest challenges still ahead for troops.
Q: What has modern ground warfare looked like, and where is it headed?
We went through a long period where our troops played a role in large scale counterinsurgencies both in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the end of these two long wars, the ground forces are moving from sustained large-scale counterinsurgencies and preparing for future conflicts. And, the shape of that future is far from certain.
There are a number of evolving security threats worth watching, including a resurgent Russia, a chaotic Middle East, a rising China. Any number of conflicts could involve U.S. ground troops, potentially in large numbers and for operations that could be far different from the counterinsurgency wars.
Q: So how has the ground force strategy changed?
There has really been a technology shift, a democratization of information technology that now connects and empowers civilian populations. Civilians have access to things like smartphones which mean real-time information at their fingertips. In the future, U.S. ground forces will probably be in an environment where their location is known and where every action is reported. So the ground force strategy has to change and must be mindful of important ways in which the operating environment is changing.
There is increasingly a momentum for human interactions, the democratization of war, and increasing lethality in ground combat. Even in a conventional war against a nation state with an organized military, engaging in the human element of war — the spread of information — will still be important to ending the conflict. It’s about winning the minds of people. The social and human dynamics of war still matter today even if warfare has grown in complexity and risk.
Q: What exactly do you mean by the human element of war?
Let’s look at it through our experience in the War in Iraq. We went into Iraq looking at our ground force strategy in terms of military strength and hardware, and we forgot about the civilian population. We basically thought that the civilian population would be sequestered from the battle. Obviously, that was flawed. We found ourselves very quickly in a country of 25 million people, many of whom were not supportive of U.S. occupation.
We have to think of war beyond the enemy and the hardware needed. We have to be thinking about the political goal of war, and we have to find tools to shape that goal into a reality. In modern war, the conflict is almost always involving a civilian population, so we have to be thinking about that human element first and foremost.
Q: What’s the biggest challenge for troops moving forward?
Because war increasingly is democratized and involves human interactions, it means the future operating environment will only grow more dangerous and complex. It’s probably the biggest challenge ahead, and it’s still unfolding because of the rapid change of technology. Rogue actors now have access to things like precision-guided weapons. Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) took a heavy toll on U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, emerging drone and ground robotic technologies are expanding the ways with which improvised weapons can deliver attacks. The result of all this could mean increases in the lethality of ground combat that the U.S. military must begin to prepare for now.
Q: Talk about the importance of agility in ground force strategy. What does that mean and how do you see it playing out?
A lot of times, the U.S. military cannot foresee the challenges of war. We need a force that is agile enough to adapt to a range of challenges as they are happening. It means being able to recognize and understand new challenges, experiment with solutions, and implement effective responses faster than the enemy. Often times agility is easier said than done. Think about the sheer size of the military. It’s has vast resources at its disposal, and its sheer size can get in the way of agile responses to threats. In order to win the wars of the future, our military must use agile equipping and agile people.
By agile equipping, I mean making deliberate and rapid acquisitions. The acquisition process should emphasize modularity, so that combat systems can be upgraded incrementally. Leaders need to respond with agility too. The military must develop future leaders who can quickly adapt to operational challenges or adjust to a changed strategic context. This requires training and strong development. Finally, our military leadership has to take on a strategic mindset of agility in order to anticipate needs in changing warfare. U.S. ground forces should implement a regular program of experimentation to explore new challenges and solutions across the spectrum of conflict, and this style of experimentation should incorporate both new technologies and tactics.
For more on how the U.S. ground force game is changing, download CNAS’s full report — Uncertain Ground: Emerging Challenges in Land Warfare.
January 12, 2016 DRS Technologies How the very nature of the U.S. ground force game is changing.
Brought to you by DRS Technologies
A resurgent Russia, a chaotic Middle East, the rise of ISIS and global terror — these are just a few of the threats that the U.S. military is up against when it comes to potential conflict, war, and boots on the ground operations.
And now, a new report from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) says that the military needs to do more to adopt a mindset of agility if it wants to win in wars of the future.
“Modern war is changing for our military leaders and troops,” says Paul Scharre, the report’s author and a Senior Fellow at CNAS. “It requires a level of agility, which means that your troops can adapt to changing events, understand the strategic ramifications of their actions, and be best equipped with the right tools for each mission.”
To better understand how the U.S. military’s ground game is changing, Scharre explained some of the biggest challenges still ahead for troops.
Q: What has modern ground warfare looked like, and where is it headed?
We went through a long period where our troops played a role in large scale counterinsurgencies both in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the end of these two long wars, the ground forces are moving from sustained large-scale counterinsurgencies and preparing for future conflicts. And, the shape of that future is far from certain.
There are a number of evolving security threats worth watching, including a resurgent Russia, a chaotic Middle East, a rising China. Any number of conflicts could involve U.S. ground troops, potentially in large numbers and for operations that could be far different from the counterinsurgency wars.
Q: So how has the ground force strategy changed?
There has really been a technology shift, a democratization of information technology that now connects and empowers civilian populations. Civilians have access to things like smartphones which mean real-time information at their fingertips. In the future, U.S. ground forces will probably be in an environment where their location is known and where every action is reported. So the ground force strategy has to change and must be mindful of important ways in which the operating environment is changing.
There is increasingly a momentum for human interactions, the democratization of war, and increasing lethality in ground combat. Even in a conventional war against a nation state with an organized military, engaging in the human element of war — the spread of information — will still be important to ending the conflict. It’s about winning the minds of people. The social and human dynamics of war still matter today even if warfare has grown in complexity and risk.
Q: What exactly do you mean by the human element of war?
Let’s look at it through our experience in the War in Iraq. We went into Iraq looking at our ground force strategy in terms of military strength and hardware, and we forgot about the civilian population. We basically thought that the civilian population would be sequestered from the battle. Obviously, that was flawed. We found ourselves very quickly in a country of 25 million people, many of whom were not supportive of U.S. occupation.
We have to think of war beyond the enemy and the hardware needed. We have to be thinking about the political goal of war, and we have to find tools to shape that goal into a reality. In modern war, the conflict is almost always involving a civilian population, so we have to be thinking about that human element first and foremost.
Q: What’s the biggest challenge for troops moving forward?
Because war increasingly is democratized and involves human interactions, it means the future operating environment will only grow more dangerous and complex. It’s probably the biggest challenge ahead, and it’s still unfolding because of the rapid change of technology. Rogue actors now have access to things like precision-guided weapons. Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) took a heavy toll on U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, emerging drone and ground robotic technologies are expanding the ways with which improvised weapons can deliver attacks. The result of all this could mean increases in the lethality of ground combat that the U.S. military must begin to prepare for now.
Q: Talk about the importance of agility in ground force strategy. What does that mean and how do you see it playing out?
A lot of times, the U.S. military cannot foresee the challenges of war. We need a force that is agile enough to adapt to a range of challenges as they are happening. It means being able to recognize and understand new challenges, experiment with solutions, and implement effective responses faster than the enemy. Often times agility is easier said than done. Think about the sheer size of the military. It’s has vast resources at its disposal, and its sheer size can get in the way of agile responses to threats. In order to win the wars of the future, our military must use agile equipping and agile people.
By agile equipping, I mean making deliberate and rapid acquisitions. The acquisition process should emphasize modularity, so that combat systems can be upgraded incrementally. Leaders need to respond with agility too. The military must develop future leaders who can quickly adapt to operational challenges or adjust to a changed strategic context. This requires training and strong development. Finally, our military leadership has to take on a strategic mindset of agility in order to anticipate needs in changing warfare. U.S. ground forces should implement a regular program of experimentation to explore new challenges and solutions across the spectrum of conflict, and this style of experimentation should incorporate both new technologies and tactics.
For more on how the U.S. ground force game is changing, download CNAS’s full report — Uncertain Ground: Emerging Challenges in Land Warfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment