U.S. MILITARY TO TRANSFORM

U.S. Military to Transform

Abstract

Transformational concepts have led to emotional reactions throughout their introduction. The author analyzes strategy and transformation since the end of the cold war to show there existed institutional momentum to define transformation in terms of major combat operations and technology as a panacea. In this paper, I have identified several key factors that led to the perceived or actual need to transform. I also analyzed, policies ordained to effect the desired transformation, leading forces that shaped policies pursued in order to achieve the transformation and an assessment as to how well the military organization under investigation achieved its desired end state.

Table of Contents

Abstract2

U.S. Military to Transform4

Introduction4

Discussion5

The legacy5

The Armed Forces HQ5

The analytical community which gives support both to the political level and the HQ5

Outcomes of Transformation7

Current Defense Transformation7

Successful Transformations: Airland Battle8

Efforts through the 1990s9

Misperceptions10

Assessment12

Acknowledge a Crisis Exists13

Conclusion13

References15

U.S. Military to Transform

Introduction

A military transformation process is inadequate unless it enables a national-level transformation regarding how the US views security in the world today. The transformation process must appreciate the effects of globalization and information technology on international affairs and conflict. According to Thomas Friedman, globalization and information technology have created a world where individuals and nations both have the power to influence international events. Thomas Hammes describes the concept of superior political will as the threat in political, networked, and protracted warfare. National security analyst Thomas Barnett provides an approach to security with information technology as the connective tissue of globalization and the US must focus the efforts of all elements of national power toward linking security to globalization (Donald, 2003).

“Transformation” in word, deed, or function, has not been fully embraced by the military. New concepts are dismissed out of hand because they are contrary to proven, historical methods of waging war. This lack of acceptance can be traced through the confusion of exactly what the word “transformation” means, how it is used, and from where its associated concepts originate. Once the reader understands the impact of culture on a term as nebulous as transformation, it will be definite transformation requires a new definition and vision to guide the process, so the national security apparatus can move beyond employing power from stovepipes and toward utilizing all elements of national power in a synergistic way. True vision lies in the culture change required for the military to embrace the process of transformation demanded by today's international security environment (Patrick, 2005).

Discussion

The term “transformation” conjures apprehension and distress in many military members. Transformation became the term to describe any change in the military after realization of the information age. With it came concepts like effects based operations, systems-of-systems analysis, collaborative information environment, and network-centric warfare, among others.

The Transformation Planning Guidance (TPG) was born out of a need for the Office of Force Transformation to develop a strategy and plan for Defense transformation following the 2001 QDR. Some effects are given below.

The legacy

Only a small share of the total defense capital (personnel, materiel,…) is renewed ...