A Failure to Adapt and a Failure to Lead

Max Boot pointing out the failure of the US to utilize and adapt to the modern versions of warfare. He doesn't say it, but it definitely sounds like the analysis showing our countries inability to use 4GW with specific emphasis on information warfare.

The Information Revolution of the late 20th century upset the seemingly stable postwar order. The Soviet Union had no Silicon Valley and could not compete with the United States in incorporating the computer into its economic or military spheres. U.S. prowess at waging war in the Information Age was showcased in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which, along with the collapse of the Soviet empire, left the United States standing alone as a global hegemon.

But if history teaches any lesson, it is that no military lead is ever safe. Challengers will always find a way to copy or buy the best weapons systems or develop tactics that will offset their effect. Our most formidable enemies, Al Qaeda and its ilk, have done both. They are using relatively simple information technology — the Internet, satellite television, cellphones — to organize a global insurgency. By using such weapons as hijacked airliners and bombs detonated by garage-door openers, they are finding cracks in our defenses.

We have an insurmountable advantage in high-end military hardware. No other state is building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, stealth fighters or unmanned aerial vehicles. In fact, we spend more on the development and testing of new weapons — $71 billion this year — than any other country spends on its entire defense. But all that spending produces weapons systems that aren't much good for pacifying Baghdad or Kandahar.

Painfully true. I think it is even worse in many circumstances. One of the lessons from Vietnam shows in the present Iraq information war. The government doesn't know how to tell the people what is happening and why we need to succeed. The Bush administration has had especially hard times with getting the message out. They also have difficulties with timing. They seem only to go on the offensive when they need something politically. That obviously is the wrong tact.

Not that the MSM is of much assistance on this. Reporting tends to discount the US governments information for that of other less reliable sources without realizing that the government can be held liable for the accuracy of the information. Politics is pretty good at that. The MSM editorial voices are, in general, disdainful of any information from the sitting administration, irrespective of party. Bush Dementia Syndrome has only catalyzed that tendency.

The MSM also has been found doctoring, or using, distorted or fabricated news from people that should be considered the enemy. Falsified reports from Lebanon were so prevalent that it's almost disgusting that most of the public hardly even understand that many of the Israeli atrocities were exaggerations of minor military actions.

Politicos aren't any assistance either. There is too much benefit for the partisan screeching to be viewed as truth with no vetting of the facts. Take the WMD reasoning for Iraq. It was one of 23 reasons that the congress put together to justify the authorization to use military force. Now it's a reason to abandon Iraq to chaos with no real conclusion in stability. Many Democrats don't like Iraq and are angry about the WMD misinformation, but they don't think we should bail in the MurthMode. Look at Carl Levin if you need an example.

I'll just jump to the conclusion:

It may sound melodramatic, but the future of U.S. power rests on our ability to remake a government still structured for Industrial Age warfare to do battle with decentralized adversaries in the Information Age. After all, aren't we the mightiest, richest nation in history? How could our hegemony possibly be endangered? That's what previous superpowers thought too. But their dominance lasted only until they missed a revolutionary turn in military technology and tactics.

There is a drastic need for correction in the government. I think the military has started that refocus with Rumsfeld's work. Irrespective of what you think on his management of Iraq, he has begun the reshaping of the military to where it needs to go. He may be playing Sisyphus in his fight to make the military managers go the right direction or at least try to figure out what the right direction is. Unfortunately, the present military has been slow to adapt, thanks to nearly a decade of atrophy under Saint Bill. Too small, too focused on a large near peer conflict. If you can't give Rumsfeld credit at least for that, you probably should reconsider where we would be if Iraq hadn't happened.