http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1930
The link is to a speech given by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Bob Work, on the future of land combat. I thought it was very interesting with a number of significant implications.
It's very technology-focused but still valuable to see where our senior leaders' strategic thinking is headed.
I think it bears directly on the 'women in Ranger School' discussion on going and some of the conflicts it has exposed (heavy vs light, Cav vs Infantry/LRRS, future role of women in the force).
In the disaggregated, combined-arms force imagined in Mr. Work's comments the critical capabilities of ground forces become intelligence, adaptive, tech-savvy, and culturally sensitive leaders capable of operating across multiple echelons and warfighting functions - not so much on formations to close with and destroy the enemy.
In such a force combining Infantry and Armor branches into 'Maneuver', integrating females into all branches, and creating units serving much more as force providers than deployable elements makes total sense.
I'm not convinced you gain more than you lose with those paradigms but I think it gives an interesting strategic driver to the decisions being made vice the common argument our leaders are just 'politically correct.' Which, of course, is not mutually exclusive from the other strategic motivations.
The link is to a speech given by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Bob Work, on the future of land combat. I thought it was very interesting with a number of significant implications.
It's very technology-focused but still valuable to see where our senior leaders' strategic thinking is headed.
I think it bears directly on the 'women in Ranger School' discussion on going and some of the conflicts it has exposed (heavy vs light, Cav vs Infantry/LRRS, future role of women in the force).
In the disaggregated, combined-arms force imagined in Mr. Work's comments the critical capabilities of ground forces become intelligence, adaptive, tech-savvy, and culturally sensitive leaders capable of operating across multiple echelons and warfighting functions - not so much on formations to close with and destroy the enemy.
In such a force combining Infantry and Armor branches into 'Maneuver', integrating females into all branches, and creating units serving much more as force providers than deployable elements makes total sense.
I'm not convinced you gain more than you lose with those paradigms but I think it gives an interesting strategic driver to the decisions being made vice the common argument our leaders are just 'politically correct.' Which, of course, is not mutually exclusive from the other strategic motivations.