After reviewing the conditions of present and future conflicts, in which it is a matter of overcoming the adversary’s will rather than his assets, the author describes the challenges that will face British land forces. Technology will of course help, but the soldier is the most important resource, and his education and training will have to be adapted to meet those challenges.
Future Challenges for Land Forces — a British View
The world faces an uncertain, rapidly changing and competitive future in the early decades of the twenty-first century. Nations and their armed forces will have to manage the consequences of crises and shocks, both natural and man-made, in a geopolitical landscape characterised by volatility, complexity and surprise. The possibility of interstate conflict, although reduced, still exists. Meanwhile, we are faced by a proliferation of irregular threats in the form of international terrorists, criminals and insurgents, some with access to sophisticated technology and weapons. With the multiplication of these threats to our security, the British Army is being used for very different purposes, further afield than we might have expected a few years ago, and in very demanding operational circumstances.
The next few years will be challenging. It is critical that we determine what the British Army must do to achieve strategic and tactical success both now and in the future. Against this background, it is vital to recognise what part land forces will play in the future and understand why they will play the significant role in future conflicts. After an analysis of the nature of future conflict and adversaries, this article will conclude by examining the challenge for land force development in the coming years.
The Current Military Context–Rapidly Shifting Trends
If this article on future warfare had been written in 2003 it would have told a remarkably different story. Just four years ago, in the wake of the ‘defeat’ of the Taliban, and the successful rout of the Iraqi Army, the military writing was all about ‘Transformation’. The language of Transformation described highly deployable forces, conducting infrequent expeditions, and, aided by technology, rapidly overwhelming the enemy. Wars were going to be shorter and fought with fewer forces, which would result in fewer casualties–on both sides. In the United States, the neo-conservatives were adamant that US forces did not do ‘nation-building’, and that follow-on stabilising operations could be left to the Europeans.
Il reste 89 % de l'article à lire
