• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Parameters Article on Role of US Army in FSE

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,520
Points
1,140
An interesting article in Parameters:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05spring/metz.htm

entitled: Intervention, Stabilization, and Transformation Operations: The Role of Landpower in the New Strategic Environment

Here are some highlights:

In this new strategic environment, instability and indirect aggression must be ameliorated, not simply contained. If the root cause of instability or proxy aggression is not addressed, the thinking goes, the problem will eventually reemerge. In discussing the Middle East, for instance, President George W. Bush stated, â Å“As long as that region is a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will produce men and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our friends. We seek the advance of democracy for the most practical of reasons: because democracies do not support terrorists or threaten the world with weapons of mass murder.â ?5 Aggression flowing from internal instability thus demands the actual transformation of an unstable or aggressive state into one which is both stable and willing to adhere to the norms of the international community. This is a revolutionary idea.

It is not so much revolutionary as it is comprehensive..

Landpower is crucial for this new grand strategy since it is the tool by which aggressive or conflict-ridden states can be transformed into stable ones. What is now needed are strategic concepts to implement the larger vision and to provide a basis for force, leader, and operational concept development. Existing strategic and operational conceptsâ ”major theater war, rapid decisive operations, peace support operations, counterinsurgency operations, and so forthâ ”provide part of the solution. But these need to be revised, woven together, and tied to the broader interagency and multinational requirements in new ways. In the new strategic environment, the primary function of the American military is what might be called Intervention, Stabilization, and Transformation (IST) operations which do exactly thatâ ”integrate the disparate strands of existing military strategy. The next step in the evolution of US military strategy is to refine and develop this idea.

Good argument for beefing up the Army

Improved capabilities begin with conceptual clarity. IST operations are the means for projecting American power against a source of instability or proxy aggression, quickly stabilizing the nation or region where the intervention takes place, but then undertaking the often long and arduous process of transforming the unstable or aggressive state into a stable entity adhering to the norms of the international community. IST operations, in other words, seek to ameliorate a problem rather than just deferring or containing it. A working definition of IST operations would be: Intervention, Stabilization, and Transformation operations are a sustained and integrated interagency (often multinational) activity to project power to an ungoverned area, failed state, state-in-conflict, or chronic aggressor state, to quickly restore order, and then to ameliorate the source of instability or aggression by transforming that state into a stable, progressive member of the international community.

Quite an elegnat concept

IST operations must reflect the seamless integration of all elements of national power. There is simply no other way that transformation can occur. This integration should occur not only on the vertical dimension of an IST operationâ ”from before intervention to final transformationâ ”but also on the horizontal (integrating the agencies, nations, and organizations involved). The need to mesh with a wide range of partners, from coalition militaries to elements of the US government to international and nongovernmental relief organizations, places new, complex demands on the US military. Great strides have taken place in the past two decades in the arena of jointness to the point that the services are pursuing true interdependence. To attain maximum effectiveness at IST operations, a parallel process needs to take place allowing the US military to operate seamlessly with other partners.

Basically the JIMP paradigm restated.

If the United States cannot effectively intervene, stabilize, and transform states-in-conflict and repressive states, the coming decades will be a time of increasing danger, with the potential for yet unrealized disaster. The grand strategy to meet such threats is taking shape; now a military strategy and tangible capabilities for implementation are required. The building blocks exist within the US military, but these are just a start. The military, especially the Army, should augment its own capabilities and lead government-wide efforts. Even if the Army undertakes a full and successful transformation focused on IST operations, the rest of the government has to follow suit if the United States is to implement a new grand strategy. The Army therefore needs to serve as a catalyst for greater change.

A role that our own Army can play?

The time is past when the decisive application of landpower meant simply defeating enemies on the battlefield. Today it entails transforming them into nonbelligerents, allies, and friends. This is an extraordinarily complex task which will pose some of the greatest organizational and conceptual challenges the Army has ever faced. But given the immense costs associated with failure to act, no effort can be spared.

Nice conclusion

Dave
 
Back
Top