This was under discussion at "Sic Semper Tyrannis" and I'll repost what I said here..
I have to draw your attention to that excellent work "The Invention Of Peace" by (now) Sir Michael Howard published in 2000.
In his last prophetic chapter "The Tomahawk versus the Kalashnikov" he forecast the type of war now being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he also raised a much deeper conundrum that has direct bearing on the matter being debated.
That is the decline of the Nation State, in the face of globalisation, to be not much more than a "Brand" - as in "Britain Plc." as he called it. I would argue, although Howard didn't at the time, that America has now gone exactly the same way.
Now the issue for Howard in his book was that in order to make peace it is necessary to have Nation States who are capable of negotiating disputes with other nation states and enforcing the terms of such settlements on their respective populations. Lebanon is an example of where the Government has not (yet) been able to do this thanks to Hizbollah.
However, given that Nation States are becoming less powerful, in the sense that they cannot command the instant and absolute patriotic obedience of their populations, let alone transnational corporations, it makes it more difficult for Nation States to maintain peace.
We have seen this process at work already. The wars over Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya. The last Israeli/ Hizbollah war. The ongoing problem of the PKK in Turkey, Iraq and Iran are examples of this weakness.
But as Sir Michael Howard argued that Nation States were required to keep the peace, it could also be argued that strong Nation States are required to wage the type of Total War it appears that some in the U.S. Military hanker for.
I don't believe that nation states these days are strong enough to sign up for the type of military economy required for set piece battles like another Kursk or Somme because I don't think populations, let alone corporations, will support the total mobilization of their economy to support such action.
Please note that my reasoning is not that of the Bloomsbury group pre WW1 arguing that man is now too intelligent to allow such conflicts. My argument is that the Nation State is now too weak an institution to command that type of war - and that includes the United States, especially in view of it's current economic circumstances.
What I think it is perhaps relevant to train and equip for is something in between the two extremes, as to me this is more likely. For example, operations during the break up of a failed State. Operations to prevent a state breaking up. Operations to prevent/ neutralise ethnically driven movements, and suchlike. Operations to deal with (perhaps) climate or economically driven mass migrations.
For example, exactly what is going to happen to the Kurds? What should happen to the Kurds? How can military operations contribute to the solution of the Kurdish problem in Iraq, Turkey and Iran?
To put it another way, how do we protect our interests in failed States, like Somalia, and what is the Military's role going to be in that task? Surely that must govern force design?
To me, what is required is battalion sized units that are (1)virtually self contained in terms of organic fire support. (2)Have an infinitely lower logistics requirement than today's units.
(3) Have much better educated and trained soldiers who are all multi skilled, in the sense that they can handle policing/fighting/civil affairs activities without slowing down to change roles, but I'll leave that debate to the experts.
As for the Airforce, let them sit back as the new "Ultima ratio regis" because they seem to wish to contribute little else.
Bookmarks