There are a lot of moving pieces with this question; culture innovation and economy, over-glorified war stories, Military Strategic Doctrine, and modern US military acquisitions – what could possibly have gone wrong? What part of Clausewitz’s “spirit of the age” ties all this together? Technology!
There is no doubt that “Advance Technology” and a “war against a lesser trained and equipped force” were critical contributors to the success of ‘AirLand Battle’ during DESERT STORM. So successfully, it resulted in deterring much of Saddam aggression. There is no argument that the US Army had a solid doctrine, training, technology and organization foundation going into DESERT STORM. However, I believe the depiction of ‘supreme dominance’ was vocalized due to a high morale nature from the success. Unfortunately, it was also premature as the following wars have proven quit different against non-state actors using “inexpensive and …show more content…
What made the United States an innovation powerhouse during the golden age is relevant to the way technological development progresses in the modern era. However, innovation is getting harder and the pace of growth is slowing down.
We have been successful with Non-State Conflict with our smaller tactical unit doctrine - unconventional and/or irregular warfare against non-state actors. Today, most casualties are from non-combat causes. Since 2010 - near the end of Iraq War - the US has been on a steady exponential decrease in causality.
When it comes to 'near-peer competitors', we do what we did at the beginning of the cold-war. We deter! We had learned that deterrence with state-actors is accomplished with the size of your military forces and maintaining the fear of advance technologies. You’re not going to beat 'near-peer competitors' with irregular
There is no doubt that “Advance Technology” and a “war against a lesser trained and equipped force” were critical contributors to the success of ‘AirLand Battle’ during DESERT STORM. So successfully, it resulted in deterring much of Saddam aggression. There is no argument that the US Army had a solid doctrine, training, technology and organization foundation going into DESERT STORM. However, I believe the depiction of ‘supreme dominance’ was vocalized due to a high morale nature from the success. Unfortunately, it was also premature as the following wars have proven quit different against non-state actors using “inexpensive and …show more content…
What made the United States an innovation powerhouse during the golden age is relevant to the way technological development progresses in the modern era. However, innovation is getting harder and the pace of growth is slowing down.
We have been successful with Non-State Conflict with our smaller tactical unit doctrine - unconventional and/or irregular warfare against non-state actors. Today, most casualties are from non-combat causes. Since 2010 - near the end of Iraq War - the US has been on a steady exponential decrease in causality.
When it comes to 'near-peer competitors', we do what we did at the beginning of the cold-war. We deter! We had learned that deterrence with state-actors is accomplished with the size of your military forces and maintaining the fear of advance technologies. You’re not going to beat 'near-peer competitors' with irregular