ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

Analyze a historic campaign or battle to answer the question: How is this campaign or battle representative of Murray and Knox's definition of a revolution in military affairs?

Analyze a historic campaign or battle to answer the question: How is this campaign or battle representative of Murray and Knox's definition of a revolution in military affairs?

Introduction

What then are military professionals to make of these great revolutions that have rocked the history of the West and the world since the 17th century? Probably not much. At best, if they are able to recognize such events, they can hold on and adapt to trying and difficult times. History does suggest smaller phenomena that might best be termed RMAs. In these cases there is profound evidence that the right military institution and culture can gain a significant advantage. If military revolutions are compared with earthquakes, we can think of RMAs as pre- and aftershocks. (Rogers, 1996) During the process of developing RMAs military organizations must come to grips with fundamental changes in the political, social, and military landscape; they innovate and adapt to—in some cases foreshadow—revolutionary changes. RMAs involve putting together the complex pieces of tactical, societal, political, organizational, or even technological changes in new conceptual approaches to war. The formula is rarely apparent at the time, and even historians with access to the documentary evidence find it hard to reconstruct the full concept. The results on the battlefield, however, make it chillingly clear which military organization has done better at innovating and adapting. Before proceeding we might want to look at where possible RMAs fit with the larger phenomena of military revolutions.

Discussion

There are several historically interesting aspects of RMAs. First, most take considerable time to develop even in wartime; and peacetime RMAs even in the 20th century have taken decades. One can argue over the accuracy of applying the term revolutionary to concepts and capabilities that take such a long time to emerge. There is also the matter of perspective. To the French and British what happened on the Meuse in summer 1940 and afterwards undoubtedly appeared revolutionary. To the Germans the doctrine and capabilities that destroyed the Allies in the battle of France would have appeared revolutionary. (Toffler, 1993) Moreover, what is clear today was not apparent to those who fought then. For example, many German officers in May 1940 would have attributed their success to the fanaticism that Nazi ideology had infused into the fighting spirits of their troops. And there would have been some legitimacy to that view, given German perseverance in crossing the Meuse despite casualty figures in lead companies that reached upwards of 70 percent. Originating an RMA in wartime is difficult enough. The combined arms revolution during World War I, which saw development of accurate indirect artillery fire with decentralized infantry tactics that relied on fire, maneuver, and exploitation, emerged from the slaughter on the Western Front in 1917 after three long years of learning. And the details of that revolution were not entirely clear ...