Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Science and Society / Analytical work: the experience of Russian and foreign experts / Articles
About new directions of development of military science in the USA
Material posted: Arzumanyan Rach'yaPublication date: 02-11-2012

According to our estimates, the situation in military science the United States today remains ambiguous. Experts note that over the last ten years through several changes of priorities that is related to leading change geopolitical and geo-economic situation in the world, as well as the peculiarities of scientific-technical progress in recent years.

The analysis shows that for 2005-2007 in the American military science of the General, ended with the formation of the theoretical Foundation of the"revolution in military Affairs" (RMA) - directions of the military policy initiated in the late 80's and early 90-ies of XX century. The WFD was intended to lead military organization in the U.S. according to the qualitatively changing world. It addresses all levels of military command: a military-political, strategic, operational and tactical. This allowed us to speak of the emergence of a new form of war.

The main factors that contributed to the development directions are:

  • qualitative changes in society, in which famous works of A. Toffler (philosopher-futurist whose work has had a profound influence on the development of military science in the 90-ies of XX century) has been called "the Third wave";
  • the information revolution, globalization, the emergence of a new reality – Network, and the formation of two new "spaces of war": information and cognitive.

Separately it is necessary to specify the factor related to the desire of American policymakers to gain a kind of conceptual framework that is able to compete with developments that received Soviet military school in the framework of reform of the Navy of the USSR, begun by Admiral Sergey Gorshkov, theoretical basis and practical implementation, which were initiated in the 70-ies of XX century.

The result of the development of the theoretical basis of the WFD has been the emergence of the theory settentrione wars and the concept settentrione operations. Guide theory in political and military circles became an American Admiral Sybrowsky.

Priorities and the contribution of Soviet military science in the formation of the concept "revolution in military Affairs" (and then the theory of Settentrionali) Western military establishment is not denied.

Practical testing carried out during operations "desert Storm", "Freedom for Iraq" and other military campaigns, demonstrated a qualitative increase in the capabilities of the armed forces in large-scale military conflicts in an active stage of their development.

To date, the theoretical basis settentrione operations can be considered to be decorated and completed. Ongoing research and annual conference focused mainly on applied and practical aspects related to the implementation and improvement of new systems of weapons, based on the concept of Settentrionali.

Among other countries, implementing concepts settentrione pays great attention to India.

It was India today, the most actively promoted through the implementation of best practices in the practice of military construction.

The most "advanced" in implementing Settentrionali in the practice of building the armed forces today are the armed forces of Britain and Australia. Active The China.

Adaptation issues have with France and Germany, which have their own "continental" tradition and the strategic school, and who struggle to accept the "Atlantic" principles of military strategy.

The use of armed forces in a qualitatively changed environment security, as well as the analysis of the effectiveness of combat application of new developments in the field of military art, had shown the urgent need for inter-Agency coordination of efforts of state structures, participating in the planning and conduct of military operations. Understanding of the need for "orchestrating" all elements of national power have prompted American military science to solving the problem of creating a General system basis for interagency cooperation.

The concept approach, based on the achievement of the effects, was a response to the challenges of this kind. However, its implementation is faced with subjective and objective limitations.

The first should include an excessively high level of training necessary and stringent requirements that apply to all officers - existing levels (especially Junior officers) did not meet the requirements placed by new concepts.

The second reasons are the limitations and problems of subordination imposed on the sphere of national security, military and political culture of the United States.

The approach in solving the problems of interagency cooperation, offer the military was closed. The combined forces command (JFCOM), decisive, including the task of coordinating efforts between different military branches and services, 4 August 2011 was disbanded. In General, the development of this research in the proposed key military, political and strategic spheres was severely interrupted. As explanations cited the results of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, the failures which had, primarily, of a political nature, but also pointed to the need for budget cuts.

This turn, which peaked in the change of White house administration, could be the result of "clan fight" in the highest generals of the Pentagon. As a result of fighting, many longstanding practices were eliminated, which generally have a negative impact on the state of American military science, and threw her in development for a few years ago.

The next and logical step was the transfer of the center of activity of the interdepartmental planning of the use of force in the U.S. Department of State.

In December 2010 published its first "Quadrennial review of diplomacy and development" (quadrennial while Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR)), which is analogous to the "Quadrennial defense review" (quadrennial while Defense Review (QDR)).

In November 2011, established new organizational structure "Bureau of conflict and stabilisation operations military-political situation in the country" (Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO)), and in January 2012 - "Bureau of counterterrorism" (Bureauof Counterterrorism). New structures are designed to take some of the activity that was previously conducted by the Pentagon.

Voluntary termination in 2007 of the reforms, it is logical to build on the last decade in the framework of the WFD, have led to the dominance of counterinsurgency operations (Counterinsurgency Operations, KPO) as the main directions of development of military science of the USA (the prevailing "Vietnam heritage"). Some influence here had and assessment of the Russian experience of confrontation with illegal armed groups in the North Caucasus, and certain failures of the American army in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In those years, a large number of literature, research accumulating over many decades of experience in the development of KPO in the Western vision of the war. However, quite quickly, by the end of 2009, formed a vision, that KPO are the only tactical concept, and its use as a broad basis led to the erosion of the strategic and military-political aspects of the confrontation and the inevitable failures.

Understanding the limitations of KPO in early 2010 leading to the return of research relevant to the operational art that was previously considered irrelevant. There were research that seeks to account at the operational level of changes in the security environment, and support a new perspective on the operations, for example, the concept of complex operations.

Interests and point of view of the military Department in new conditions in this area, in addition to the old think tanks (RAND, SSI, CSIS, Chatam House, etc.), are being developed in several new centres established for the development of new military and strategic concepts. Among such centers, the activity and quality of work are:

Center for the study of interagency cooperation. Colonel Arthur Simons (The Col. Arthur D. Simons Center for the Study of Interagency Cooperation), which aims to solve the problems of interagency cooperation at the tactical and operational levels. The centre is funded and is under the direct supervision of the Command and staff College army school (U. S. Army Command and General Staff College) and should summarize the experience gained by the US in conducting counterinsurgency operations and stability operations military-political situation in the country. The center began operation on 21 April 2010 and is located at Fort Leavenworth (Fort Leavenworth). The centre started publication of a new series of "Interagency publication" (The InterAgency Paper (IAP)), designed to cover the interagency aspects of national security in General, as well as in the missions, which is a priority for the Center. Internet website of the Centre.

The center for complex operations (CenterforComplexOperations (CCO)). The center was established within the Ministry of defence of the USA in 2008 on a mandate of Congress. Since January 2009, is part of the national defense University (National Defense University). In addition to research and educational programs in the field of interagency cooperation, the Centre is engaged in civil-military operations (civil-military operations), the holistic approach to nation-building (whole-of-government approach), irregular wars, and other kinds of activity in which the issue of interoperability of the armed forces with the civilian sector.

The center publishes the journal "PRISM" for a wide range of readers, in one way or another involved in the problem of performing complex operations, integrating all elements of national power. Website magazine - The Internet Center.

The realization by 2010 of having problems at the levels of strategy, Grand strategy and geopolitics has led to a surge of strategic studies. The amount of literature leading think-tanks devoted to understanding gained over the past decades of experience in concepts, strategies, hundreds a year.

An important event can be considered the emergence of a new (but influential) electronic journal "InfinityJournal"entirely devoted to questions of strategy. The magazine sees strategy in terms of using the instruments of national power to ensure policy objectives of the state, focusing on the use of military power. The website of the journal.

Assessment is developing in the U.S. military-strategic concepts leads to the conclusion that in the long run as one of the main directions of development of military science will be the development of the theoretical basis of the operating environment of irregular wars, which would reflect the experience gained in military campaigns of the last decade at the tactical, operational and strategic levels of war. In this area today attempts to explore what may be a response to the challenges of hybrid warfare, the necessity of a military confrontation with non-state actors, etc are being actively developed concepts for the application of special operations forces at all levels of war. It is on this arm of the service, is supposed to be the main burden of the military combating irregular opponent.

It should also be noted and special efforts to develop the theoretical Foundation of combat use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), robotic and swarm systems.

Theoretical studies in this direction have been going on for over ten years. However, technological breakthroughs of recent times who have made possible the emergence of UAV and universal robots performing the role of shock complexes, demanded an immediate theoretical interpretation.

A wide and everyday use of UAVs and robotic systems has led to the emergence of a whole complex not only military, but also legal, political and other problems. Military science was required within a limited time frame to answer questions such as: are the changes to the tactical or strategic level of war, or to talk about a new form of war and even changes in the nature of war? Where is the line between war and purposeful destruction of leaders of insurgents in a special operation? Around these issues at the present time turned a serious discussion not only in the circles of military theorists, but also among the political elites and among the representatives of the Western culture.

Another important area of interdisciplinary research today is the development of the military aspects of the application of the concept "Responsibility to protect" (responsibility-to-protect (R2P)) at the military-strategic and military-political levels of war.

Originally being a theory of law affecting the issue of sovereignty in the twenty-first century, R2P in recent years emerged as powerful concepts within the theory of international relations.

In recent years we have seen the emergence of works that explore already and military aspects of this concept. The concept is causing heated debate and discussion in the military community. Traditional military circles in the U.S. oppose such a broad interpretation of the possibilities of the use of military force that are envisaged under R2P. The concept served as a theoretical justification for the use of armed force in Libya.

In General, there was fairly rapid development of concepts and theories in the American military science designed to provide effective solutions to the challenges that are put (or will put) in front of the military from the military-political leadership of the country.

Important is the fact that most of existing concepts developed in the direction of minimizing the use of military force, leading to unnecessary destruction and civilian casualties. As an illustration, you can specify that in new developments there was no place strategic nuclear forces and other weapons of mass destruction. Priority areas include ways to use limited in number, well armed and highly mobile groups of special forces, and the use of other instruments of state power, such as information and economic opposition, etc.

Significant problem for effective use of the developments in the military sphere is the widening gap in the perception of the strategic concepts between different States, an ally of the USA (through NATO and outside it). Today, the most integrated are the Anglo-Saxon state, other States are lagging behind in terms of perception of experience. This may be one of the important factors stimulating the transformation processes within NATO, but also lead to the emergence of other configurations in an international military environment.

Arzumanyan R., S. Grinyaev

RELATED MATERIALS: Science and Society