“In each succeeding war there is a tendency to proclaim as something new the principles under which it is conducted. Not only those who have never studied or experienced the realities of war, but also professional soldiers frequently fall into the error. But the principles of warfare as I learned them at West Point remain unchanged.”― John J. Pershing, My Experiences in the World War
There is an old maxim in the military that says, “Generals are always prepared to fight the last war.” The US entered into combat operations after 9/11 expecting to fight the same way it did in the Gulf War (1990-91). What followed was an endless exercise in trial and error, as the US military, with all of its high-tech gadgetry, was stymied by an enemy using low-tech weaponry.
As this author can state from firsthand experience, change is the only constant. How we began fighting the “war on terror” in 2001, was very different from how we ended fighting by the time I was retiring in 2020. The reason war always changes is that the enemy also gets a vote.
The initial battleground of any war is the strategy room, often filled with execution briefs and sand table exercises. Here, leaders outline to generals their strategies for missions or campaigns, presenting scenarios including the least likely, most likely, and most dangerous courses of action. This anticipatory planning aims to predict the enemy's moves or lack thereof.
What is not lost on those reviewing the aftermath is the ironic and biased nature for which we fight the enemy as we would fight, which all but guarantees their missions will always be successful. To paraphrase what the German Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke the Elder once aptly stated: No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
Since before the age of recorded history, war has been a mainstay of human activity here on earth. The reasons why we fight are numerous, but the terrain, manner of mobility, and the development of weapons have largely shaped how we fight. For example, sixteen-foot-long spears, held by disciplined Greek Hoplites in a phalanx formation, proved an effective method of fighting enemy infantry and untrained cavalry on flat terrain. However, take the flat terrain away, and a phalanx becomes a rather cumbersome gaggle trying to lock shields awkwardly.
Likewise, the bow and arrow proved both a lethal and capable weapon, vastly increasing the stand-off distance between the attacker and the attacked. That was until both sides begin using them or one learns how to shoot from the back of a horse.
Technology is always improving because combatants are always seeking to gain an edge over their rivals. But when that edge is nullified, innovation either turns to improving upon the existing model, or finding a different path forward thus proving another aged maxim true; necessity is the mother of invention. Thus, if as Winston Churchill once noted, history is written by the victors, then it is those who were the first to embrace the changing tides of military innovation that usually come out on top.
The Two Wars
The Great War (1914-1918) emerged as a pivotal period of technological innovation in combat, showcasing remarkable advancements across the military capability spectrum. Nearly all aspects of warfare, including ground medical evacuation, experienced significant improvements. The issue with these advancements was not their lack of impact; rather, it was that the new technologies—such as the era's airplanes, machine guns, submarines, and artillery—were rudimentary compared to later standards.
No, the real challenge lay in the military leadership's reluctance to depart from outdated tactics of previous conflicts to embrace the evolving technological landscape. Consequently, if every generation's capabilities are confined by their era's technology, then their leaders are naturally inclined to adhere to the familiar strategies, operations, and tactics of their own military upbringing. This has remarkably held true for most of modern history.
By the summer of 1939 (twenty years after the end of the “Great War”), the world was, once again, perched on the edge of a great conflict. With this coming at the end of a decade-long Great Depression, Americans had little appetite for getting into another multi-year bloody conflict in Europe.
However, on December 7th, 1941, a surprise attack by the Imperial Japanese Army on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii awakened the sleeping giant that was the United States. The assault provoked a fervent public outcry, which politicians leveraged to transform the nation's peacetime economy into a formidable war machine, greatly surpassing the technological feats of World War I. This time, the advantage lay not solely in the superiority of American equipment over that of the Germans or Japanese—though in some cases it was—but in the unparalleled capacity to mass-produce military resources.
This production prowess ensured the U.S. maintained logistical supremacy over its adversaries, underpinning American dominance across land, sea, and air. The swift escalation of the wartime economy not only cemented the United States' superiority in the latter stages of World War II but also ingrained in American military leadership for the decades to come, the daunting expectation of perpetual readiness for simultaneous conflicts in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters.
As such, with the focus and ability of mass production, unrestrained invention, and unfettered innovation would, by the end of the war, climax with the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy over Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a demonstration of superiority, inescapably thrusting mankind into the Atomic Age.
Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)
As alluded to at the beginning of this brief, a "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA) signifies significant changes in military operations driven by technological advancements, doctrinal shifts, and organizational adaptations that fundamentally alter the conduct of warfare. Historically, game-changing inventions like the bow and arrow, gunpowder, and the atomic bomb had enormous transformative impacts on the status quo of the age.
However, these advantages were often short-lived as adversaries were quick to adapt. Until the 20th century, RMAs were infrequent and slow to emerge. However, with the onset of rapid technological revolutions in the 19th and 20th centuries, they are becoming increasingly recurrent.
RMAs not only involve technological shifts but also necessitate the adoption of new strategies and tactics for leveraging these advancements in modern warfare. A notable illustration is the drastic transformation of armies from the beginning to the end of World War 1, transitioning from horseback-mounted cavalry with rifles to mechanized forces with tanks and machine guns.
RMAs often represent a paradigm shift in military tactics as well, which begin to significantly change military operations and strategies due to the often asymmetrical technological advantages they offer. RMAs might also include either expanding into new domains (ex. subterranean, space, and cyberspace) or introducing new technologies and capabilities into old domains (ex. land, sea, air). Lastly, as we will demonstrate here, RMAs also include fundamentally restructuring how we fight to capitalize on emerging technologies.
Jigsaw vs. Mosaic
Traditional warfare often involves large, monolithic force structures executing well-defined campaigns using massed resources and centralized command-and-control strategies. It typically relies on superior firepower, numbers, and straightforward strategies aimed at overwhelming the adversary through direct confrontation. This approach emphasizes large-scale engagements, heavy equipment, and the extensive logistical support necessary to sustain operations over a period. Given the United States' recent rapid decline in virtually every spectrum, this approach, for obvious reasons is no longer sustainable.
A new RMA underway is known as Mosaic Warfare. Mosaic warfare has been likened by the US Department of Defense (DoD) to “actualizing” the multi-domain battlespace it often spends so much time talking about. Unlike traditional warfare, which more closely resembles a jigsaw puzzle, Mosaic Warfare is akin to arranging or rearranging a tiled mosaic with minimal effort, providing an unparalleled level of flexibility. However, it is not just about repeating the same cycles of the past, where the tactical/operational/strategic advantage is momentary and fleeting. US Leadership is serious about gaining the military advantage into perpetuity, which Mosaic Warfare seems poised to do...at least in theory.
Thus DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), has been tasked with exploring making Mosaic Warfare the new standard, which represents a fundamental shift towards a more dynamic, flexible, and decentralized approach to military operations.
The mosaic approach breaks down the force into smaller, more agile elements (akin to tiles in a mosaic) that can be rapidly reconfigured to meet the specific demands of a situation. This strategy leverages advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence, networked sensors, quantum computing, 3D printing, and autonomous systems, to create a highly adaptable force capable of executing a wide range of tasks across different domains simultaneously.
The key differences between traditional and mosaic warfare include:
1. Flexibility and Adaptability: Mosaic warfare emphasizes the ability to quickly adjust and reconfigure forces to meet emerging threats, as opposed to the fixed, predetermined structures common in traditional warfare.
2. Decentralization: Whereas traditional warfare relies on a centralized command structure, mosaic warfare advocates for decentralized decision-making, allowing for faster responses to dynamic battlefield conditions. In this model, decisions could be made by both humans and artificially intelligent systems.
3. Technological Integration: Mosaic warfare heavily incorporates cutting-edge technologies, including cyber capabilities, unmanned systems, and real-time data sharing, to enhance decision-making and operational effectiveness.
4. Multi-Domain Operations: Unlike traditional warfare, which may focus on specific domains (land, air, sea), mosaic warfare is inherently designed for integrated operations across all domains, including space and cyber, to exploit vulnerabilities in an adversary's defenses.
While traditional warfare is characterized by its scale, predictability, and concentration of force, DARPA's mosaic warfare concept seeks to create a more resilient, responsive, and technologically integrated approach to modern military challenges. This concept is very much in line with the 2016 former Army Chief of Staff's vision of Miserable, Disobedient, and Victorious.
However, even the most promising strategies from respected leaders face significant challenges in the face of pervasive corruption emanating from the nation's capital. The ensuing discussion will delve into why, despite its theoretical merits, the harsh realities of our current environment may render this innovative concept ineffective. Amidst these considerations, it's crucial to acknowledge a critical oversight by today's global leadership: the spiritual realm. This domain, often neglected in strategic considerations, holds significant untapped potential for shaping outcomes in contemporary warfare.
Author's Note- Correction: Since the end of World War II, there have been many clandestine US DoD and Intelligentsia personnel and groups that do take an active interest in the spiritual domain. Decades have been spent studying Psychokinesis, Extra Sensory Perception (ESP), UFOs, Stargates, the Occult, remote viewing, and mind-altering psychedelic drugs. This fascination seems to have been a result of the decades-long embracing of Freemasonry, Eastern Mysticism, et. al, which helped fuel operations like Operation Alsos and Paperclip.
According to the Bible, when a person, group, or nation rejects God and the Biblical worldview, God begins to give that nation over to its delusions. In theological terms, this is known as the "wrath of abandonment" and once one is fully given over, there is no return or redemption.
Furthermore, the Bible is quite clear that soon, the spiritual domain will invade the physical realm we inhabit to become the dominant battlespace. What is coming is dependent upon one looming game changer, which is, the Rapture of the Church and the removal of the ministry of restraint by the Holy Spirit. After this point, the typical will be replaced by the strange, and the natural will be replaced by the supernatural. This will usher in what this author likens to as, A Revolution in Prophetic Affairs (RPA).