 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Over at MilBlogs, an interesting discussion of Network-Centric Warfare. (See the comments there too.)
The fusion of the latest corporate management buzzwords to the latest techno geekspeak to the world of military purpose (acronyms and all) creates a language that few can speak (though many can fake) and a different sort of battlefield where no sane man would tread. (That being the planning sessions for the whole thing.)
For good or bad, if the concept were ever fully realized there will be virtually slim chance of the US military functioning (combat-wise) in close-quarters with "coalition partners". (Integration of the various components of the US military into a 'total force' is difficult enough without the concern for technology sharing with "allies".) Conceivably, the added edge in combat might render the presence of other forces on the battlefield superflous anyway (friend and foe alike) in all but a political sense.
It could be argued the political edge gained is probably not worth the effort either. It seemed like a fine idea to build a coalition back in '90, but that was driven as much by the desire to avoid the "Crusader" tag as it was from concern about the martial power of Saddam's armed forces. So in return for $7 billion in debt relief, Egypt sent three goatherds and a camel. Who could blame them? Meanwhile, down in Saudi, some guy named Osama bin Laden started shouting about Crusades, and Arab leaders who were subservient to the decadent West...
So if the goal was to avoid the Crusader tag, we lost - big time, long before round two of the ground war in 2003. But not surprisingly, in the lead-up to the re-invasion of Iraq, "some" chose to insist on the whole coalition-building exercise - then promptly heaped scorn on the coalition that did form.
But truly I've digressed. In reality, the very real possibility is that future technological advances will limit allies in a combat "coalition" with the United States (with very few exceptions) to support roles. That's actually been the case for years, but given the expected advances it will be interesting to see just how much longer we will pretend it's not.
