A doctrine for the 21st Century (almost)

A doctrine for the 21st Century (almost)

As the Pentagon’s top officers look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they are embracing a new approach to warfare focusing on a more agile, “networked” force capable of working closely with allies to defeat a mosaic of decentralized enemies around the world, the nation’s top general said Tuesday.

This nascent doctrine, or what Dempsey described as an “inchoate … central organizing principle,” stems from the threat environment the Pentagon sees as the most relevant by the year 2020.

“We are just beginning to adapt from counterinsurgency as kind of our central organizing principle and if I had to put a tagline on it today, it would be very premature for me to do it but I’m gonna do it, I would say that where we’re headed is something that I would describe as a global networked approach to warfare,” said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, during a talk at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


The general was responding to an audience question about whether the United States had a 21st century military doctrine. “It gets back to my point about taking capabilities we haven’t had before, really integrating them into our conventional capabilities, partnering differently — with a very different goal and with very different processes to support it — and allowing ourselves to confront these networked, decentralized foes with something other than huge formations of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.”

Dempsey went on to say that the military must adapt the lessons learned about fighting nimble, decentralized insurgents over the last decade and apply them to a force that can fight “networked” enemies around the world.

Doing so involves using smaller groups of forces spread around the globe that are capable of working with other nations to combat everything from terrorism to piracy to transnational organized crime in a world where high-tech weapons are commonplace.

“The world that we have seen evolve around us … over the last 10 years in particular, is a world I describe as a security paradox, we’re at an evolutionary low in violence in the world right now but it doesn’t feel that way because there’s a proliferation of capabilities, technologies to middleweight actors, non-state actors, that actually makes the world feel, and potentially be, more dangerous than anytime I remember in uniform.”

Alliances between global terrorist groups, organized crime syndicates and rogue nations that “come together and pull apart based on moments in time when they want to come together against us” must be met by a  flexible network of U.S. government agencies and allied nations, said the four-star.

To lead this effort, the Pentagon must focus on international partnership-building and integrating the ne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, cyber and special operations capabilities developed over the last decade into “our normal way of operating,” according to the general.

Dempsey said his comments were based on meeting the priorities laid out in the Pentagon’s new global security strategy that was released in January.

Join the Conversation

I do wish these guys would stop hawking networking and information dominance as a rejection of the principle of mass in favor of economy of force. Both principles remain sound and both have their place. Likewise with the relationship between mass and maneuver…Having a 240 lb linebacker who can run the hundred yard dash in 4.5 seconds is much more powerful that a 180 lb corner back who runs it in 4.25. I also think that the trade between manned and unmanned systems is something that may not reduce the size of the force structure as radically as some apparently wish. Remember — Speed AND Power.

Other words we cut numbers of troops and tanks planes apcs ect. While Russia and China and all the other bad guys increase there numbers. They make new tanks pure fighter planes and subs. We will make crap like GCV and the F-35, cuts to our ships will make them decade’s away from service. In other words we are going to be outgunned by Generals and politicians who want to fight Iraq and Afghanistan all over again.

Need to read between the lines:

(1) Big brother is alive and well in the form of the United States military.
(2) They want to be everywhere and engage everyone who sneezes at the U.S. This is exactly why the Founding Fathers warned us about “foreign adventures.“
(3) They have no sense of history — overreach is the beginning of the end for the American Empire. Ask the Soviets and the British before them.
(4) They want to spend every dollar in the U.S. Treasury. Oh, that’s right. 40% of every Pentagon dollar comes from the foreigners they want to interfere with. So they want to go to war with Walmart (China).
(5) They learn absolutely NO lessons. We were attacked on 9/11 because we have continually poked our noses and foreign policies into everyone else’s business.
(6) And, as the article points out, they want all the old, expensive World War II and Cold War toys as well as the “new” insurgent stuff.

The central problem is that the US military of the modern era was never intended to win wars. Its primary role was display and spending. Now that the Cold War is over all that is left is spending.

By it’s own admission as little as 5000 farmers equiped with no more than fertilizer and detonators is all it takes to defeat it. Generals go white with fear when they contimplate having to go back to Afghanistan after another 911 attack. So the need to redefine the role quickly as “anything but war” is acute.

This is by far Osama’s greatest acheivment — he set out to prove that the US military was as hollow and toothless as the Soviets and he has been completely successfull. Everyday we see the geopolitical ramifications of that.

Those who are on the take get outraged when faced with the reality but the American taxpayer is increasingly wondering why we are spending twice the GDP that everyone else is for an orgnaisation that wont do the job.

2) The key thing is to define the enemey so broadly that progress is impossible to even measure. Thus no progress is necessary. You get fundign for “being at war” while essentially doing little or nothing to win.

3) The irony is that the military would prefer to withdraw to the US and never leave. But it is faced with the problem as Rumsfeld put it if it cant fight what is it good for ? When America is attacked and the whitehouse asks the generals what the plan is they cant say — “sorry not our job, we cant go, we’ll just lose”. They drag thier feet as much as possible but at the end of the day they are forced to go.

So overreach is being driven by the fact that we are spending all this money on something that says it can do the job but really cant. A smart president knows that, dim ones like Bush start belivee the PR and start wars.

4) The primary role is to spend as much money as possible. The secondary role is to provide employment for our economies losers. One has to ask if those are the objectives how pretending to be an armed force is any benifit ?

5) The famous book Learnign to Eat Soup with a Spoon addressses this very question — chapter after chapter asks the question “is the US military a learning organisation ? — can it learn from it’s mistakes ?” at the very last chapter the answer is No.

Our mliitary is organisationally a product of the 18th century so it is hardly surprising that it cant cope with the 21st century. But the rreal killer is half a century of not being held accountable for failure. From Korea to Afghanistan for half a century it was allowed to fail and survive — that breeds incompetence.

6) “Expand the role shrink the accountability — increase the funding” — its a motto that is deeply embeeded in the whole organisation.

You are clueless. The modern US military was built around winning wars by killing our enemies. And we do do that quite well. How many tens of thousands of your beloved drug farmers have we killed? Yet this isn’t conventional warfare, this is nation-building. We are essentially trying to turn a dysfunctional third-world tribal wasteland into something resembling a unified nation. This is a rather different task from smashing Iraqi armored divisions or the military of any functioning country.

Killing Taliban is nothing but a game of whack-a-mole as long as the Afghan national government remains as worthless, incompetent, and corrupt as it has been thus-far.

But if you think you could do better you should enlist. Clearly somebody with all of the answers like yourself could fix Afghanistan in a week.

Did you just call the men and women of the US military economic losers? Just want to clarify…

Unlike yourself, most tax payers ( the 1%, and the 47% middle class) know how the system works. For those of us who were there on the ground saw how your 5000 sheep hearders with poop and cell phones were dropping like flies and running for the hills in the early days of the war. It was not until washington got involved with the war (both ganistan and iraq) that the military had thier hands tied and we started incuring real casualties. Politics kills troops not bullets, If we had it our way we would walk through and not leave a blade of grass standing then board lifts on the other side and come home, we dont care about nation building but do as we are told. CONTINUED BELOW

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE: All politicians everywhere need to learn and accept the fact that failed politics is why wars happen in the first place. Once the desicion is made to use the military the only order should be you have 3 or however many months to kick thier 6 as you see fit to make sure they are no longer a threat and return home, afterwords the govt can start politicing again. No aid or restitution will be provided in any form afterwards — the thought of this alone — knowing that if they invoke military action, that we will destroy everything in our path and leave once done without even handing out a band aid would prevent a lot of future conflicts. CONTINUED BELOW

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE: Chavez has been goading us for years wanting us to come after him so he can call a truce and us pile in cash and infrastructure, and he’s not the only one, Mexico does it daily wanting us to come in and build more infrastructure and factories for his country so his people dont have to go elsewhere to earn a living. And everyone in country knows Kharzi and Pakistan are behind a lot of the attacks wanting us to stay and pour in more money to both countries even though washington refuses to listen to the boots on the ground. Let the US military do its job without outside interferance and no one can stand up to them. CONTINUED BELOW:

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE: As far as the threat of countries like china, n.korea or even russia comming after us, they know it would be futile to try because they could never take the US mainland without the posibility of total nuclear war and still probably could not capture it. The reason has nothing to do with our military either but the fact that there was over 7 mil hunting license issued last year in the US and they know there are many more people with guns that dont hunt — They could never amass enough troops to take the US without destrying themselves.

Your head is in the sand guy. Sure the US military is built to win wars by killing our enemies as said below. But if you ignore the fact that ROE limits our very willingness to seek out and destroy the enemy, you are fooling yourself. It makes no difference that soldiers and other enablers want to win if our leadership limits our ability to do so. Look at Iraq, politicians love to trumpet our success there, yet insurgent activity is live and well and expanding. Ethnic differences are increasingly becoming a problem again. We spent all that time building rapport for what? We spent all that time winning hearts and minds for what? You either forget yourself or you are just to ignorant to know that top brass and civilians run the show. The military is perfectly able and willing to kill and win when not limited by the civilian leadership setting policy, you conveniently ignore.

I assume you are trolling?

It is amazing to me that those that have never served in the military seem to know so much about how we operate and what we do.

It is even more amazing that my brothers in the profession of arms, which are the most war seasoned and experienced in than any before it, can be so intolerant of a different viewpoint than ours.

It is the true consideration of those different viewpoints that gave our founding fathers the insight to laydown the framework of our great country. And unless it has changed since I retired after 40+ years in uniform it is our sowrn oath to protect and defend those who do not think and act like we do.

“This is by far Osama’s greatest acheivment — he set out to prove that the US military was as hollow and toothless”

And wound up getting himself shot in the head by a group of toothless economic losers.

You’re such a trolling tool Oblat, go away.

We also have the right to express o0ur views and doing so isn’t a demonstration of intolerance, it’s a demonstration of us using our own freedom of speech. Perhaps you should look in the mirror for intolerance.

great response, sometimes what an idiot needs is a slap upside the head. Ask any other military in the world how “hollow and toothless” they think the US armed forces are. AQ thought they were safe bu hiding in the most remote place they could find and we still kicked their door down and dominated them. And it’s not like they are forcing us to leave, we are just rethinking about whether ot not it’s worth it to spend years trying to build up their country. If the answer were a resounding yes by the US public then their efforts to stop us would make little difference.

I believe it was ‘foreign intrigue’ which fits this mindset even better

“.…a more agile, “networked” force…”

i.e. haul out the SEALS and Spec Forces at the drop of a hat.….……for any and all
’problem’ areas of the world

We cant fight wars against countries because no country admits to harboring or funding the terrorists. So we fight in countries against both sides. I dont care what anyone says about the last 22 years of war in the middle east, we had absolutely no way to train our forces here. Troops would still die in training exercises. At least now we know the pussies dont wear uniforms, hide behind women and children and would rather die than be captured. The whole reason we are at war half way around the world is to keep all the jagloads there united fighting us. How many attacks since 9/11? Yeah, something positive is happening by keeping them occupied in the kitty litter

It’s inchoate only because no one paid attention to Vice Adm Owen’s paper “The Emerging US System of Systems” and Cebrowski’s “Network Centric Warfare.”

It is still a linear doctrine. The problem is ‘bad guys’ and the solution is “fighting.” Nothing wrong with fighting; it’s just one tool.

The USMC is asking some interesting questions. Why does war start? How does war/conflict end?

If you look at Afghan, we have USDA, UN, Red Cross, State Dept, et al in country doing things. This is the first time most folks have seen each other. Why not some cross training and shared intel at the service colleges?

Maybe if most of the folks are hungry, many unemployed, and high rates of disease/children-babies dying.…. maybe the solutions are partly fighting and partly development (although 19th century solutions may be more sustainable than 21st century technological leaps).

Therefore if the future force is a distributed FOB-based organization, maybe the organization, TOE, specialty mix, and training starts to look different. No front line means no rear area. How do you fight and support distributed nodes? How do you maintain OPSEC when you’re surrounded by the ‘enemy’?

We have lost our ‘National Vision’ of our Military’s purpose. That is to defend the Constitution and the American people. Our stratigies in 50+years of undeclared wars has broken not only our economy but our soul and spirit as Americans. We’ve allowed the ‘Good Guys’ to become the enemy. How on Earth did we get our asses kicked by no Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Army? Politics and Religion will rule the day, not military might. We are in the middle of the Roman Empire’s demise and don’t even know it.

Allow me to add this: As a SPECWAR employee and extreme advocate for “light, tight,get-it right — tonight-fight’, there is safety in numbers in Theatre. China is rising and the Ruskies aren’t exactly playing possum. Just ask Iran!

Sounds like the Pentagram is going to take orders from their UN Commanders — for the world good of course.

My brothers..are there govt. stooges on this site? My security clearance isn’t worth it!

Speaking of NATO and the U.N. for that matter, why are they even remotely revelent under this new strategy?

next up macho zak tells us how the marines can totally dominate and group of up to 5 schoolgirls.

If you ask the vietnamese or the somalis or the taliban — you know the winners — they are pretty clear why they won. But its not something you will find in one of our aars. No we concentrate on making excuses why repeating the same mistakes over and over again just with more gusto. These are professional excuses. The ones you read here sound rather childish in comparison.

So the people starving to death in disease ridden hellholes won? What did they win exactly?

As my momma used to always say “just because you can do something does not mean you should do it”.

This makes as much sense as leading from behind

There is a story about when Bill lost his job because he was incompetent and he told everyone how happyhe was because now he wasnt one of theose working people who had to work every day. Then later when homeless and walking the streets he walked in front of a car and ended up in hospital smashed up. And he was happy because at least he wasnt one of those homeless people walking the streets.

Perhaps the story is apocryphal but I’m sure it’s true. Its how losers think.

There you go again, blaming other people for somebody elses f-ck-ups. You just can’t help it can you???

“It is not enough in a situation of trust in the commonwealth, that a man means well to his country; it is not enough that in his single person he never did an evil act, but always voted according to his conscience, and even harangued against every design which he apprehended to be prejudicial to the interests of his country. This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a man’s life, that he has always acted right but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence.”

Bin Laden might’ve ended up dead — but Al Queda was hugely successful as the previous incumbent fell into the trap set for him: he exposed the limits of American Power; created a huge recruiting opportunity for new terrorists, and those wanting to donate money to terrorist causes; left behind a military at its lowest state of readiness since Viet Nam; left behind a nation deeply in debt; caused a string for foreign policy disasters unprecedented in US history; left behind a world opinion indicating that the rest of the planet considered the USA to be a bigger threat to world peace than IRAN.

All the above combined to give Bin Laden an enormous victory over the USA from a strategic perspective. At least, according to multiple years of National Intelligence Estimates.

Doing these things and spending this money is the difference between being a world power or not. The founding fathers were wise and realized they couldn’t imagine every predicament that this country might encounter; in that same vein they didn’t even imagine we’d ever be the predominent world power.

Have you read any of the recently released documents written by OBL? He in no way thought AQ was winning.

You should evaluate the situation again.

Nope, losers like you think that no matter what they do they have lost.

very good points but I don’t think the administration is asking those questions.

The fundamental problem with the military doctrine is that their goals are set by the politicians and not clearly defined, not to mention that they change very quickly. How do you establish clear doctrine when the goals aren’t clear? And when does the military get to say no to the POTUS when his ideas are wrong? Never.

The truth is that the military has to be prepared to do whatever is asked of them.

For those who oppose massive military spending (as I do) he key is to limit what is expected of the military and then change the funding to meet the expectations. As it is now a lot of people want to maintain the expectations but drastically reduce the spending which will never work.

have you seen anything you think is classified? I haven’t. Opinions aren’t classified.

A future scenario involving AF support to counter-terrorism operations leveraging current and emerging technology might be a U.S. operative ( Special Forces or other Government Agency) communicating directly with an in-theater AF asset on 15 minute alert within a control network similar to the AF Close Air Support (CAS) in being today that a high-level terrorist threat has been located at XYZ coordinates (GPS) that requires servicing with an AF asset. The response may be an ISR, RPA, precision weapon platform, or the insertion of a Special Forces team. Once cleared, the asset responds and services the target within minutes not hours thanks to strategic global basing. Joint Army/Marine/Air Force TTPs for these types of operations need to be developed. Concepts of operations for Intelligence support to these future missions will also need to be fashioned.
Would the potential outcomes of these types of missions benefit by standing up a bare-bones Air Operations Centers {AOC} (with representatives of the staff functional elements found in a normal AOC) in all of the Joint Areas of Operations?

INTREPID

It’s the perfect policy for the 21st Century except the DoD is cutting the very troop strength they need to make the policy effective. We won’t be fighting hi-tech enemies, but non-state actors, people upset with their governments, and dispossed nationalists. Much more effective to deal with them via USMC / Army on-the-ground (Anbar and RC SW!) instead of wasting a TRILLION dollars on unusable F-22 / F-35’s and $ 60 Billion on the Navy’s combat non-survivabable LCS boondoggle.

Andrew, open the link in the article and read the strategy. It says, “States such as China and Iran will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities, while the proliferation of sophisticated weapons and technology will extend to non-state actors as well. Accordingly, the U.S. military will invest as required to ensure its ability to operate effectively in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environments.” That’s the reason the DoD has to invest in the 5th gen fighters, new bomber, etc. etc.

yeah. In US English “organization” is spelled thus, and not in the typical British (or, rather Brutish?) lispy fashion, which you demonstrated. “organisation”. It reminds me of a certain former Prime Minister from that damp dreary island, and the very helpful encouragement and (fake) intelligence which was “the smoking gun”, for an invasion of Irq and the urgent need to remove Sadaam Hussein from power. What a very “special relationship”, pushing our great nation into unnecessary foreign adventures. And I won’t start on the Afghan Opium. I would definitely categorize this troll under “foreign intrigue”, as one reply aptly stated. Perfidious Albion, is it? A colonial lackey? Subjects like yourself should really have a very keen sense of “know your place”. Leave the policy discussion to the true citizens of our Republic.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.