 |
The U.S. Army Professional Writing
Collection showcases articles from a variety
of professional journals that focus on relevant issues affecting
The Army. This micro-site seeks to stimulate innovative thinking
about the challenges that may face tomorrow's Army. It is further
intended that the articles featured on this site cause reflection,
increased dialogue within The Army Community, and in the best case,
action by Soldiers. Updated monthly, these articles are written
by Soldiers, civilians, academics, and other subject matter experts.
Links to various Army publications, Department of Defense journals
and selected non-governmental defense-related publications are also
provided on this site. |
|
 |
 With
the recent lightning swift combat successes of Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM, there may be a tendency to view with awe the lethality
of U.S. technology and training. Indeed, the U.S. military is
unmatched in the raw combat power it is capable of unleashing
in a conflict. This monograph, however, argues that the true
strength of America's military might lies not in its hardware
or high-tech equipment, but in its soldiers. Dr. Leonard Wong
and his colleagues traveled to Iraq to see what motivated soldiers
to continue in battle, to face extreme danger, and to risk their
lives in accomplishing the mission. As a means of comparison,
they began by interviewing Iraqi Regular Army prisoners of war
to examine their combat motivation and unit dynamics. The researchers
then interviewed U.S. combat troops fresh from the fields of
battle to examine their views. One of the things they found
was that today's soldiers trust each other, they trust their
leaders, they trust the Army, and they also understand the moral
dimensions of war. |
 |
|
|
|  Leadership
ranks as the single most important ingredient to successful
warfighting. Yet, feedback from the field indicates that current
leader development practices are flawed. Colonel Peter J.
Varljen identifies the problem as stemming from an officer
evaluation system preoccupied with quantifiable results, and
he suggests the solution is to emphasize the intangible results
of successful leadership.
|
|
|  Evolutionary
success in attaining jointness has been manifested perhaps
most clearly in the execution of joint warfare-America now
fights wars almost solely under joint commands. Most recently
and vividly this was seen by the integration of combat effects
in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, there have been other,
less visible successes in the global war on terrorism. There
also have been less pronounced but consistent successes toward
jointness made in peacetime-the steady evolution in joint
doctrine and exercises, for one example. But it is also the
case that jointness has failed to evolve in other areas in
which it was anticipated and intended by the framers of the
Goldwater-Nichols Act. There are still few standing joint
forces ready for joint deployment and employment.2 Rather,
forces are, by and large, still assembled only at the time
of deployment. Further, there has been only glacial movement
toward joint force training and experimentation and the determination
of force requirements based on combatant commanders' warplans.
|
|
|  Evidence
from current operations, including joint and service wargaming
exercises, clearly shows that the operational environment
has changed. Joint, interagency, and multinational (JIM) operations
are now the norm. New organizational structures and mobility
and distribution platforms provide new opportunities for deploying,
employing, and sustaining operational capabilities. Tactical,
operational, and strategic lines have long been blurred in
the sustainment arena, and now joint and service planners
can contemplate a similar blurring of the functional lines
of deployment, employment, and sustainment. Effects-based
sustainment will complement the emerging Effects-Based Operations
concept of the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM). Operation
Iraqi Freedom confirms that future operations will be jointly
executed, with each service component lending its unique and
important capabilities to the joint battle plan. Army warfighting
and sustainment concepts must be developed within a JIM environment.
|
|
|
|
