Army Faces a "Crisis of Relevance," Rand Expert Warns by Mark Brunswick, Minneapolis Star Tribune
An expert from the Rand Corp. suggests that more than a decade’s worth of experience in Afghanistan and Iraq has honed the U.S. Army’s ability to fight irregular adversaries. But the Army now faces a “crisis of relevance” for its future enemies, particularly “state-sponsored hybrid adversaries” similar to the Islamic State (ISIL), Hezbollah, Hamas and separatists in Ukraine.
The thoughts of Rand senior researcher David Johnson, a retired Army colonel, may get into the weeds for the average civilian. Critics may also find the implications of his belief in the inevitability of U.S. military engagement off-putting.
But they do offer an interesting challenge about Army engagement - the battles the U.S. has not fought but likely will fight in the future…
The Challenges of the "Now" and Their Implications for the U.S. Army by David Johnson, RAND Corporation
The U.S. Army has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq almost continuously for more than a decade. While this experience has honed the Army's ability to fight irregular adversaries, these may not be the adversaries the Army will need to fight in the future. This perspective reviews the spectrum of military adversaries and operations the nation currently faces, how it has adapted to irregular challenges and the consequences of that adaptation, and the lessons of other recent conflicts. The aim here is not so much to learn about the current conflicts but to help understand battles the United States has not yet fought but likely will in the future — to learn how to address the recurring Army pattern of ignoring potential conflicts while focusing intently on a current one. To counterbalance this focus, the author has synthesized prior RAND research and drawn on personal experience and discussions with current Army personnel. He notes that our country's potential adversaries know U.S. military capabilities and vulnerabilities and are adapting. The Army needs to prepare for the full range of adversaries it is likely to confront, some of whom will be armed with weapons that are now superior to some of its own.
Key Findings
Potential Adversaries Know U.S. Military Capabilities and Vulnerabilities
- These adversaries are adapting.
- The Army needs to prepare for the full range of adversaries it is likely to confront, some of whom will be armed with weapons that are now superior to some of its own.
Comments
The Army is fighting a war and manpower reduction. President Obama has decided against deploying a strike force or Brigade size element in Iraq to spear head geometric fires. The US public has been told President Obama believes it would require 100-200,000 troops. The US Army is being drawn down to 430,000 troops total how would such a deployment even be feasible even if it was the minimum and not the optimum troops needed? However, deploying a Brigade size element to Africa to fight EBola did not cause anyone in DC to blink an eye.
Obviously there are some real political questions that need to be addressed if not by the military by the American public. Trying to reduce this issue to purely military terms is the opposite of force multiplying.
The analysis of Israel's fight in 2006 also should have focused on which IDF forces were deployed and why? I believe it could have strengthened the point the authors have made, If memory serves me correctly, a large portion of the troops deployed were reservists and their training amply described by the authors is also an issue as to lag time between up training reserve units versus regular or active duty components. in that respect I believe the US Army reserves and even the Army Guard have taken large steps forward into total integration. Whereas at the end of the Cold War many units in the Guard were using signal and other equipment one might only otherwise find in an Army museum.
This is a very challenging report and I hope it gets the distribution and reading it deserves, and I am not being sarcastic.