Gates Notes Convergence of Conventional, Irregular War - Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service.
As the Army moves forward, differences between conventional and irregular warfare are becoming less important, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told students and faculty at the Army Command and General Staff College here today.
"To some extent, much of the debate between low-end and high-end [warfare] misses the point," Gates said. "The black-and-white distinction between conventional war and irregular war is becoming less relevant in the real world." ...
The U.S. military has overwhelming conventional military dominance over any potential adversary in the world, but experience has shown that isn't enough, given the threats America faces, Gates said...
"Possessing the ability to annihilate other militaries is no guarantee we can achieve our strategic goals -- a point driven home especially in Iraq," he said. "The future will be even more complex, where conflict most likely will range across a broad spectrum of operations and lethality -- where even near-peer competitors will use irregular or asymmetric tactics, and nonstate actors may have weapons of mass destruction or sophisticated missiles."
The Army is working to institutionalize the lessons learned from counterinsurgency operations, Gates said, but the students and faculty at the staff college also must be at the forefront of thinking ahead to future conflicts that will traverse that broad spectrum of operations.
"You must develop the analysis, doctrine, strategy and tactics needed for success in 21st century conflicts that are likely to be very different from 20th century conflicts -- and different from conflicts we are in now," he said. "You must continue to be the visionaries, the pathfinders, the intellectual cutting edge of the Army."
The Army must modernize equipment for future conflicts and identify technologies that will continue U.S. military dominance, the secretary said. "Advances in precision, sensor information and satellite technologies have led to extraordinary gains that will continue to give the U.S. military an edge over its adversaries," he told the students and faculty. "But no one should ever neglect the psychological, cultural, political, and human dimensions of war or succumb to the techno-optimism that has muddled strategic thinking in the past." This is especially true for the Army and Marine Corps, which will lead -- and bear the brunt of -- irregular and hybrid campaigns in the future, he said...
More at American Forces Press Service.
Casey Says Army Needs Counterinsurgency Capabilities - Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service.
Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said it is unfair that the press has portrayed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as having to pressure the Army and its leaders to adopt counterinsurgency as a necessary capability.
"I spent 32 months in Iraq," Casey said here yesterday during a Defense Writers' Group breakfast. "I get it."
The chief said that when he served as commander of the 1st Armored Division in 1999 to 2001, he thought that if a division could handle conventional war it could handle anything below it on the scale of conflict.
"After 32 months in Iraq, I don't believe that anymore," the Army Chief of Staff said. Casey said he now believes the Army has to posture itself and train to operate across the spectrum.
In 2008, he said, the Army came out with a new full-spectrum doctrine that said Army formations will simultaneously "apply offense, defense and stability operations to seize the initiative and achieve the desired results."
"It is not an easy intellectual shift to move away from the idea that the Army is supposed to fight other armies," Casey said. "It takes a decade to fully ingrain a doctrine in an organization the size of the Army."
But, no one in the Army appears to be arguing with the need. "I don't find there are a lot of dinosaurs out there that say, 'We gotta go defeat the 8th Guards Tank Army [a major unit of the Red Army during the Soviet years],'" Casey said. "Most of the four-star generals in the Army have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. We understand it."
Still, some critics say the Army is concentrating too much on counterinsurgency doctrine and is not paying attention to conventional warfare. Casey said that this is because the time between deployments for soldiers is still too short.
If soldiers get two years between deployments, they will get the chance to train for all aspects of conflict. Right now, it is important that they train for the missions that confront them now.
In the future, the scenarios will be even more different...
More at American Forces Press Service.