Evolution Vs. Revolution

[HaloRanger]

Well said my old friend/neighbor. Hope the Family is well.

Rob, you know me and you know my background thus I don't claim to be any expert. I am neither Clausewitzian nor am I Jomni but a hybrid of both as like the enemy we too must adapt. When you discuss evolution vs. revolution I think some times we might have to simplify and de-evolutionize ourselves in order to defeat the enemy at their own game. I believe this as I look through history and see evidence in this. Look at the development of guerilla warfare. The Revolutionary War we were able to defeat an organized army many times over by these small non-traditional tactics (simplicity) learned from the back-woodsmen who survived from fighting Indians and hunting daily. During the Civil War the education of in ranks fighting was taught and instituted into doctrine (not leaving out the tactics of the wagon wheel and others). The numbers of casualties are drastically different as the militia demonstrated a better or more effective survivability. Now look forward to today. We have the best technology in the world but I sometimes feel that this technology clouds our views on DOTLMPF. In Iraq I have seen units come in and set up these most elaborate digitized TOCs for the simplest missions. You and I both remember leaning on a tree writing OPORDs. Is this not true? We need to step back without having to rely on gadgets and gewiz stuff to view it in the eye of our enemy. They are utilizing the simplest items to get to our Soldiers. Do we need to evolve? Or de-evolutionize ourselves in order to clear away some of the technology fog? Like the gentleman earlier states "What does not evolve, revolves." Thoughts?

Second reason for writing is or should I say, the main, is to get back in touch with you. I ran across your picture and name on this sight.

[reed11b]

Well Look at the development of guerilla warfare. The Revolutionary War we were able to defeat an organized army many times over by these small non-traditional tactics (simplicity) learned from the back-woodsmen who survived from fighting Indians and hunting daily.

I would argue that these tactics allowed us to inflict unanswered casualties on the British, but very few actual victories. Point in fact that the Continental Army (and French assistance) was required to secure final victory. The Urban vs. Rural soldier myth has been disproven multiple times.
Also welcome to the forum, please introduce yourself formaly here.
Reed

[Steve]

Rob. I agree. The theory of evolutionary vs. revolutionary warfare can be argued from either standpoint. The key is how you define them. I think warfare is evolutionary, and in some instances, can be revolutionary. This is based on my interpretation of their definitions. Warfare is evolutionary when the military adapts and implements changes. These can be changes in doctrine, organization or the integration of technological advances on the battlefield. I think revolutionary changes take place when an outside organization or agency (congress) “assists” or forces the military to adapt or change how it fights.

An example of this is what some people consider the U.S. technological revolution. Since we were outnumbered by Soviet forces, we developed new technologies and gradually implemented them into the services (precision guided munitions, ISR platforms, stealth technology etc). But the U.S. Military didn’t make the leap to a revolutionary change in warfare until Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols act. The military had already implemented many of these technologies and had used them to some success in previous operations. But when Congress forced the services to create joint doctrine, empower COCOM Commanders and fight in a Joint environment, the result was a military organization that effectively incorporated new technology, organizational structure and doctrine on the battlefield (Panama, Desert Storm, Bosnia/Kosovo etc).

I also think Al Qaeda conducted a revolution in warfare. (If revolutions and evolutions apply to us, they also apply to the enemy.) They use multidimensional warfare (land, sea, air, cyber space) with a non-hierarchical organization and existing technologies to gain the advantage. As a result of globalization, the terrorist threat is no longer determined by geography and Al Qaeda can target anyone or anything in one or all dimensions of warfare. The originator of an event does not need to initiate the attack, only set it in motion. Since Al Qaeda believes civilian targets and infrastructure are legitimate, there are an infinite number of high value targets. When everything is a target, you can’t defend or prevent all attacks.
Al Qaeda’s version of Goldwater-Nichols is in the form of fatwa’s and religious edicts. They direct radical Muslims worldwide to plan and implement terrorist activities. Al Qaeda has always been at a military disadvantage, so they developed an organizational structure, TTP’s and violent doctrine to facilitate decentralized planning and execution. Since the U.S. Military and Intel organizations had little focus on non-state actors, Al Qaeda was able to gain the advantage and revolutionize terrorist warfare.

Both of these examples are subject to interpretation and debate, and the debate about evolution vs. revolution depends on the definition of each. Our military evolves daily in response to innovations and enemy actions and Al Qaeda evolves in response to our actions. The big question is: What will be the next revolution in warfare and who will initiate it?