Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
a question of nothing new.I suspect most here would agree with those considerations -- but most will also note that they are all well known and long standing questions to which there are many answers -- there is no possibility of a 'one size fits all' solution as we are dealing with people. The answers will change as events occur and there will also be variations in the questions themselves.

Thus the overarching question becomes "Yes. So?" What, precisely, are you postulating?
Hmm, let's not fight eachother, if we agree ... very well, things are about to change and that is a very good sign.

I am postulating that the current way we organise our armies are residues of the past.
We have to get rid of linear thinking, dogmatic and "stove piped" organisations.
Destroying the opponent’s (military) capabilities is not sufficient anymore to achieve the primary political strategic goals. In fact, this is just a minor element of the operational environment. An environment of which society, politics, economy, culture and (non)governmental organisations are prominent.
An adapted way of acting asks for an adapted form of organisation. We have to relate to organisations as a system of systems, visualising synergetic effects by a balanced presence of sensors. An organisation where kinetic and non-kinetic elements are permanently joined together into a module gives input in the ability to learn (training, practising, performing their job) from each other. The effect will be complementary. Current symmetric organised elements are residues of the past, they relate to an enemy which we will not find at the coming battlefield in the potential arena of conflict (republics bordering Russia – Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan – Middle East – Northern part of Africa).
Elements which are permanently organised in modular units learn to benefit from eachother as they learn, train and operate in a constant mixed (semi)(non) permissive environment.