Gone are the days of conventional uniforms, symbols, and equipment that make the enemy easily identifiable.
As we all know this is not new, not even close to being new. The fact that isn't new doesn't distract from the growing importance of bio-metrics, but let's not forget we have methods for identifying the enemy without biometrics which rely heavily on common sense (profiling, intelligence collection, simple questions that lead the suspect to trip over him/herself if they're trying to conceal their true intent, etc.). Biometrics is additive, not mission critical, unless we start confusing warfare with law enforcement, which in my opinion is a dangerous road to go down.

Also, biometric technology is increasing at a rate faster than doctrine can be revised to fully incorporate biometrics into how we conduct business. We must institutionalize biometrics within DoD. We must further develop formal biometric education and training policies within the biometrics community.
I hear this a lot of times about our rapidly developing technologies related to biometrics, UAVs, TTL, etc., but personally I find it contradicts itself. First you state the technology is increasing at a rate faster than doctrine can be revised, then you argue we must institutionalize it, which I interpret as locking in stone after it becomes doctrinal. I'm not faulting our objective, but faulting the military's approach to putting everything into our rigid doctrine process (slow is snail snot), when what we really need to do is encourage more innovation and sharing of best practices among users. There is a risk to this also, because ultimately biometrics won't realize its full potential if it isn't standardized (at least the databases). This is a tough problem set and I'm glad you address it here.

Biometrics is quickly becoming vital to security efforts. NYPD is proving that by its recent integration of handheld iris scanners to improve security and safeguard identities. Whether we like it or not, I feel that biometrics is here to stay.
I think the correct way to say this is biometrics is growing in importance, but it is far from vital and I hope it never becomes vital, because many of the threats we're facing (unless they're repeat offenders) are not in any database, so while biometrics is incredibly useful and helpful, it is not vital.