Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Acknowledgments
- List of Abbreviations
- 1 Army transformation: imperatives and innovations
- 2 Transformation from the top down: the United States Army, 1991–2012
- 3 Transformation in contact: the British Army, 1991–2012
- 4 Transformation as modernization: the French Army, 1991–2012
- 5 Conclusion: innovation and military power
- Index
- References
2 - Transformation from the top down: the United States Army, 1991–2012
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Acknowledgments
- List of Abbreviations
- 1 Army transformation: imperatives and innovations
- 2 Transformation from the top down: the United States Army, 1991–2012
- 3 Transformation in contact: the British Army, 1991–2012
- 4 Transformation as modernization: the French Army, 1991–2012
- 5 Conclusion: innovation and military power
- Index
- References
Summary
The US Army has been striving to transform its force structure and way of warfare since the 1991 Gulf War. These efforts over the past two decades are, however, but the latest of a number of reform initiatives the Army has undertaken since the end of the Second World War in order to fulfill its roles and missions in US national defense policy. The central mission for the Army through the four-and-a-half decades of the Cold War period was to provide a credible, forward-deployed deterrent force in Europe, and, if that deterrent failed, to prevail over Warsaw Pact forces in major combat. The Army’s last effort to transform itself during the Cold War was in the wake of Vietnam, when it implemented a range of internal changes and advanced technology acquisition programs to support its new AirLand Battle doctrine. The main focus of the Army in the various efforts to transform itself through the era of the Cold War was to create a force best suited to conduct major combat operations in Germany. The Army, along with the other US military services, through this period exploited and employed new technology to enhance its capabilities, and views advanced technology as a comparative combat advantage. The US Army that emerged from the Cold War thus was a techno-centric force that focused on being able to win in major combat operations. This US Army approach to warfare was seen as having been vindicated on the cusp of the ending of the Cold War by its success in the 1991 Gulf War.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Transforming Military Power since the Cold WarBritain, France, and the United States, 1991–2012, pp. 15 - 115Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2013
References
, The Cold War US Army: Building Deterrence for Limited War (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2008)Google Scholar
, Technology and the American Way of Warfare Since 1945 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
, The Echo of Battle: The Army’s Way of War (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, US Defense Strategy from Vietnam to Operation Iraqi Freedom: Military Innovation and the New American Way of War, 1973 to 2003 (London and New York: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar
, The Collected Works of the Thirty-second Chief of Staff US Army: Gordon R. Sullivan, General, US Army Chief of Staff June 1991–June 1995 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1996), pp. 97–98Google Scholar
National Security Strategy of the United States, August 1991, at
, Shaping American Military Capabilities after the Cold War (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), pp. 79–97Google Scholar
, Implosion: Downsizing the US Military, 1987–2015 (Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press, 2000)Google Scholar
and , Hope Is Not a Method: What Business Leaders Can Learn from America’s Army (New York: Broadway Books, 1997), pp. 250–251Google Scholar
, “The Impact of the Office of Net Assessment in the Matter of the Revolution in Military Affairs,” Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 33, no. 4 (2010), pp. 469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Certain Victory: The US Army in the Gulf War (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2006), pp. 164–174Google Scholar
, , “Information Technology in Desert Storm,” Military Review (October 1992), pp. 34–41Google Scholar
, Triumph Without Victory: The Unreported History of the Persian Gulf War (New York and Toronto: Times Books, 1992), p. 101Google Scholar
, Moving Mountains: Lessons in Leadership and Logistics from the Gulf War (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992)Google Scholar
, , Task Force Smith The Lesson Never Learned (Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military Studies, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Army Green Book: Maintaining Momentum While Accommodating Change, October 1991, pp. 65–66
“The Chief on Army Readiness: No More ‘Task Force Smiths,’”Army (January 1992), in Sullivan, Collected Works, pp. 75–76
, The Modern Louisiana Maneuvers (Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History, 1999), pp. 8–9Google Scholar
, “Delivering Decisive Victory: Improving Synchronization,” Military Review (September 1992), p. 4Google Scholar
, “Ulysses S. Grant and America’s Power Projection Army,” Military Review (January 1994)
, The US GHQ Maneuvers of 1941 (Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History, 1991), pp. 5–6Google Scholar
, Louisiana Maneuvers: Models, Simulations, and Tools (Fort Monroe, VA: Office of the Chief of Staff, United States’ Army, Louisiana Maneuvers Task Force, 1993), at Google Scholar
, American Army Doctrine for the Post-Cold War, p. 78
, FM 100-5, Operations, June 1993, at
, The History of the Army Digitization Office (Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis IDA Paper P-3521, July 2000), pp. 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(ed.), An Oral History of General William W. Hartzog, Senior Officer Oral History, US Army Military History Institute, 2004, pp. 74–75
, The Army After Next: The First Post Industrial Army (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2006), p. 41Google Scholar
, Science, Technology and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd (London and New York: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar
, To Digitize an Army: The US Army Force XXI Initiative and the Digital Divide Controversy, 1993–2003 (doctoral thesis, Department of War Studies, King’s College London, 2008)
and , “Building the 21st-Century Heavy Division,” Military Review (March–April 1998), at
, “New Design Framework for Army XXI Heavy Division,” TRADOC News Service, June 9, 1998, at
, Force XXI and the American Way of War (Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, 1995), esp. pp. 32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , Strategy and the Revolution in Military Affairs: From Theory to Policy (Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College, 1995), p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Army Command Post and Defense Reshaping, 1987–1997 (Washington, DC: Center for Military History, US Army, 2008), p. 129Google Scholar
, “Ground Troops: Why NATO Says No,” BBC News, March 30, 1999, at
and , Winning Ugly: NATO’s War to Save Kosovo (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2000), pp. 97–99Google Scholar
, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo and the Future of Combat (New York: PublicAffairs, 2001), p. 198Google Scholar
, , , and , Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2002), pp. 63–64Google Scholar
, “Risks and Restraint: Why the Apaches Never Flew in Kosovo,” Washington Post, December 29, 1999
with , “Pentagon Still Wary on Apaches,” International Herald Tribune, May 17, 1999
, “Apache Force Fidgets,” International Herald Tribune, May 22, 1999
, “Remember Kosovo? The US Army Effort That Began Our Involvement,” Army, vol. 58, no. 4 (April 2008), p. 28Google Scholar
, and , “The Operational Challenges of Task Force Hawk,” Joint Force Quarterly (Autumn/Winter 2001–02), pp. 52–57Google Scholar
“Why Did It Take So Long to Send the Apaches?,” US News, May 3, 1999
, The Transformation of American Air Power (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), p. 261Google Scholar
, “Army Battles Irrelevancy,” Federal Computer Week, November 15, 1999
, “What Next for the ‘Army After Next’?,” Weekly Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, vol. 3, no. 35 (September 9, 1999)Google Scholar
, “The Military After Next,” Washington Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 4 (Autumn 1993), pp. 157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Service Begins to Define, Examine Requirements for ‘Army After Next,’” Inside the Army, May 27, 1996)
, Knowledge and Speed: The Annual Report for The Army After Next Project to the Chief of Staff of the Army (July 1997))
, “Army After Next Focus: First Environment, Then Warfighting Systems,” Inside the Army, December 1, 1997
, Yellow Smoke: The Future of Land Warfare for America’s Military (Lanham, MD, Boulder, CO, New York and Oxford: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), p. 9Google Scholar
, “TRADOC’s Summer Wargame Turns the Tables on Tradition,” Inside the Army, July 14, 1997
, “Army After Next Wargame Offers a ‘Logical Picture’ of the World in 2025,” Inside the Army, September 15, 1997
, Strategic Horizons: The Military Implications of Alternative Futures (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “The Army After Next: Intertwining Military Art, Science, and Technology out to the Year 2025,” Army RD&A (May–June 1998), p. 5
, Future War: Anthology (Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College, 1999), pp. 123–160Google Scholar
, “With New Blueprint, HTI Becomes Central to the Army After Next Initiative,” Inside the Army, July 13, 1998
, “‘Army After Next’ Needs ‘Restored Balance’ Between Maneuver, Precision,” Inside the Army, October 14, 1996
, Transforming Command: The Pursuit of Mission Command in the US, British and Israeli Armies (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar
, “TRADOC Chief Offers Potential Framework for the Army After Next,” Inside the Army, February 23, 1998
“Army After Next Gets New Chief, Rearranges Game Schedule,” Inside the Army, August 15, 1997.
, “Army Has Big Plans for ‘AAN’ But Recognizes Fiscal, Technical Realities,” Inside the Army, December 14, 1998
, “Army Weighs Plans for Future Systems Against Modifying Current Models,” Inside the Army, February 23, 1998
, “MOD Plan Says Army Has Cut Its Bow Wave, But Severe Shortages Remain,” Inside the Army, November 23, 1998
, “Army Rewriting Warfighting Concept as a ‘Bridge’ Between Army XXI, AAN,” Inside the Army, April 6, 1998
, “Service Begins to Focus on Army After Next ‘Hybrid Force’ Concept,” Inside the Army, December 28, 1998
, “Reimer Says NDP Report Shows Support for Force XXI, Army After Next,” Inside the Army, January 12, 1998
, Strike Force in the Next War (Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, 1999), pp. 2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Army Chief Aims to Fund Strike Force, With or Without Budget Increase,” Inside the Army, December 14, 1998
, “As Doctrine Develops, New Issues Emerge for Conceptual Strike Force,” Inside the Army, February 22, 1999
Defense Acquisition: Army Transformation Faces Weapon Systems Challenges, GAO-01-311, May 2001.
, Army Transformation and Modernization: Overview and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service Report RS20787, April 4, 2001, pp. CRS 4–5
“Army Transformation Begins Its Second Year,” Army Magazine, December 1, 2000
, The Army’s “Twofer”: The Dual Role of the Interim Force, Land Warfare Paper 39 (Washington, DC: AUSA, October 2001), pp. 5–7Google Scholar
, “Initial Brigade to Receive German, Italian ‘Loaners,’” Armor, vol. 109, no. 6 (November/December 2000), pp. 43–44Google Scholar
, “Army Selects Wheeled, Speedy LAV as Interim Vehicle,” Defense News, December 4, 2000, p. 26Google Scholar
Defense Acquisition: Army Transformation Faces Weapon Systems Challenges, GAO-01-311, May 2001
, “Army ‘Future Combat System’ Secures OK from Pentagon,” Washington Times, May 20, 2003
and , The Limits of Transformation: Officer Attitudes Toward the Revolution in Military Affairs (Newport, RI: Naval War College, Newport Paper 17), pp. 27–30
and , “The Wheels Turn in Army Strategy; Transformation to Cut Tanks’ Role,” Washington Post, November 16, 2000, p. A01Google Scholar
, “Off Track? Plan for Medium-Weight Force Has Skeptics Among Tankers,” Army Times, November 8, 1999
Defense Acquisition: Army Transformation Faces Weapon Systems Challenges, GAO-01-311, May 2001, p. 16.
, “An Army of One Feeling: Angst,” National Journal, vol. 33, no. 23 (June 9, 2001), pp. 1748–1749Google Scholar
, First In: An Insider’s Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan (New York: Ballantine Books, 2007)Google Scholar
, and , “Winning with Allies: The Strategic Value of the Afghan Model,” International Security, vol. 30, no. 3 (2005/06), pp. 124–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Marines Turned Soldiers: The Corps vs. the Army,” National Review Online, December 10, 2001, at
and the Contemporary Operations Study Team, A Different Kind of War: The United States Army in Operation Enduring Freedom, October 2001–September 2005 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2010), pp. 127–179Google Scholar
and , Operation Anaconda: America’s First Major Battle in Afghanistan (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2011)Google Scholar
and , “Treadheads or Technophiles? Army Officer Attitudes Toward Transformation,” Parameters (Summer 2004), pp. 57–72Google Scholar
, Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to the President and the Congress (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld (New York: PublicAffairs, 2009), p. 208Google Scholar
and , “Surprise Spending Review Slows Pentagon’s Ambitions,” International Herald Tribune, February 6, 2001
, “A Small Study Carries a Heavy Burden,” National Journal, vol. 33, no. 9 (March 1, 2001), p. 644Google Scholar
, Secretary of Defense, Guidance and Terms of Reference for the 2001 Quadrennial Defense 2001 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, June 22, 2001), pp. 6–7Google Scholar
, Rumsfeld’s Wars: The Arrogance of Power (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2008), pp. 14–15Google Scholar
, “Civilian–Military Tension Hobbles Pentagon Review,” International Herald Tribune, July 16, 2001
, “Rumsfeld Warned Not to Cut Size of Army,” Washington Post, August 3, 2001
, “Key Review Offers Scant Guidance On Handling ‘4th Generation’ Threats,” Inside the Pentagon, October 4, 2001, p. 1Google Scholar
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, September 30, 2001 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, September 20, 2001)
Vice Admiral and , “Network-Centric Warfare: Its Origin and Future,” US Naval Institute Proceedings, January 1998, at
, Transforming Military Force: The Legacy of Arthur Cebrowski and Network Centric Warfare (Westport, CT and London: Praeger Security International, 2007)Google Scholar
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, September 30, 2001
, “The Origins of Effects-Based Operations,” Joint Force Quarterly, no. 35 (October 2004), pp. 116–122Google Scholar
, , Army Doctrine Update (Fort Leavenworth, KS: US Army Combined Arms Center, February 27, 2007), pp. 4–5Google Scholar
and , “Bush Calls Military Top Budget Priority,” Washington Post, February 5, 2002, p. A10Google Scholar
and , “Bush Proposes Defense Boost, Cuts Elsewhere,” Washington Post, February 5, 2002, p. A01Google Scholar
, “Defense Budget Gets a Friendly Reception,” Washington Post, February 6, 2002, p. A04Google Scholar
, “Rumsfeld Calls Army Brigade Combat Teams Important to Transformation,” American Forces Press Service, April 24, 2002
, “Army ‘Future Combat System’ Secures OK from Pentagon,” Washington Times, May 20, 2003
and , “Defense Secretary Wants Cuts in Weapons Systems to Pay for New Technologies,” New York Times, April 16, 2002
“Afghanistan Taught US ‘Hard Lessons’ in Close Air Support,” National Defense Magazine (August 2005)
“Air Force’s Roche Picked to Head Army,” Washington Post, May 2, 2003
, “Changing and Fighting Simultaneously,” National Journal, vol. 36, no. 44 (October 30, 2004), pp. 3299Google Scholar
, “Army Seeks Short-Term Payoff From Future Combat Systems,” National Defense Magazine (December 2003), at
, Concepts of Modularity, Pamphlet 525-68, Fort Monroe, VA, January 10, 1995
, The Brigade: A History, Its Organization and Employment in the US Army (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2004), pp. 132–137, at CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Transforming an Army at War: Designing the Modular Force, 1991–2005 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, United States Army, 2007), pp. 23–24Google Scholar
, Breaking the Phalanx: A New Design for Landpower in the 21st Century (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997)Google Scholar
, “Army Transformation Modeled After Stryker Units,” National Defense Magazine (October 2005), at
, Army Comprehensive Guide to Modularity, vol. 1, Version 1.0 (Fort Monroe, VA: US Army Training and Doctrine Command, October 8, 2004), pp. 8–1 to 8–2, at Google Scholar
, The Modular Force, Field Manual-Interim 3-0-1 (Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, January 28, 2008), pp. 1–2Google Scholar
, , Army and Air Force Subcultures: Effects on Joint Operations (Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College, March 15, 2006), at CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Masks of War: American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989)Google Scholar
, , “How Joint Are We and Can We be Better?,” Joint Force Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4 (2005), p. 15Google Scholar
, “Study Faults Army Brigade Team Plan,” Inside the Army, January 27, 2006
, , “Who Will Fulfil the Cavalry’s Function: The Neglect of Reconnaissance and Security in US Army Force Structure and Doctrine,” Military Review (January–February 2011), p. 84Google Scholar
, , “Transformation and the Irregular Gap,” Military Review (November–December 2009), pp. 25–34Google Scholar
, “Deciding Who Goes, Where and When,” Army Times, October 14, 2007, at
, An Army at the Crossroads (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, 2008), p. 14Google Scholar
, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management and , Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Force Structure: Preliminary Observations on Army Plans to Implement and Fund Modular Forces (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, GAO-05-443T, March 16, 2005), p. 2Google Scholar
, “Efforts to Reorganize US Army Tied to Emergency War Spending,” National Defense Magazine (March 2005), at
, “Army: War Duties Should Warrant a Bigger Budget,” National Defense Magazine (December 2005), at
, “Army Cash-Flow Troubles Continue Despite Hefty Emergency Allowance,” National Defense Magazine (January 2007), at
, “Analyst: BCT Reduction Means Decreased Equipment Requirements,” Inside the Army, April 13, 2009
and , Conceptual Foundations of a Transformed US Army (Washington, DC: Institute for Land Warfare, March 2002), p. 11Google Scholar
Issues Facing the Army’s Future Combat Systems Program, GAO-03-1010R, August 13, 2003
The Army’s Future Combat Systems Program and Alternatives, Pub. No. 2565 (August 2006)
, “Strategy to Blame for Radio Woes, Says Acquisition Deputy,” National Defense Magazine (April 2005), at
Defense Acquisitions: Resolving Development Risks in the Army’s Networked Communications Capabilities Is Key to Fielding Future Force, GAO-05-669, June 2005
, “Battlefield Information Systems Change with Trying Times,” Signal Magazine (March 2005), at
The Army’s Bandwidth Bottleneck (August 2003)
, “Drive to Build High-Tech Army Hits Cost Snags,” New York Times, March 28, 2005
, “Tactical Radio Program Takes New Course,” Signal Connections, May 15, 2006, at
and , “The Joint Tactical Radio System – Reloaded,” CHIPS (July–September 2006), at
, “Tactical Radio Project Substantially Weakened,” National Defense Magazine (July 2006), at
, “Doomed Quest for Radio,” The Cutting Edge, January 13, 2012, at
, “Big-Ticket Army Program Still Lacks Communications Network,” National Defense Magazine (May 2007), at
, “Delays in ‘Joint Tactical Radio’ Program Cast Doubts on Future,” National Defense Magazine (February 2007), at
, “Army Struggles to Make FCS Perform for the Hill,” Nextgov, September 22, 2008, at
, “Tactical Web Takes Shape,” Signal Magazine (November 2003), at
, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Major Weapon Programs, Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-04-248 (March 2004), pp. 113–114.
, “WIN-T’s New Tactics,” Military Information Technology, vol. 11, no. 9 (October 13, 2007), at Google Scholar
, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Major Weapon Programs, Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-07-406SP (March 2007), p. 146
, “Senate Committee Calls for Independent Review of WIN-T,” Federal Computer Week, September 14, 2007, at
, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Major Weapon Programs, Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-08-467SP (March 2008), pp. 177–178
, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Major Weapon Programs, Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-11–233SP (March 2011), pp. 127–128
, “WIN-T Ushers in New Dawn for Battlefield Communications,” Defense Systems, May 1, 2009, at
, “Army: Future Combat Systems Software Code is 55 Percent Complete,” Inside the Army, March 9, 2009
, “The Complex Crux of Wireless Warfare,” Washington Post, January 24, 2008
, “CBO: $42 Billion Needed For Army’s Wireless Plans Over Two Decades,” Inside the Army, February 23, 2009
, “Weapons Upgrade Faces Big Hurdles,” Washington Post, April 8, 2008
, “How Technology Failed in Iraq,” Technology Review, November 2004, at
, Crack in the Foundation: Defense Transformation and the Underlying Assumption of Dominant Knowledge in Future War, Student Issue Paper, vol. S03–03 (Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College, November 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Statement of Colonel (Retired) Douglas Macgregor before the House Armed Services Committee (Washington, DC, July 15, 2004), p. 2, at Google Scholar
, Transforming The Legions: The Army and the Future of Land Warfare (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, 2004), pp. 60–66Google Scholar
, “Army Looks to Give Stryker A Facelift,” Military.com, December 22, 2004, at
, “Stryker Losses Raise Questions,” Military.com, May 13, 2007, at
and , “‘Everybody Wanted Tanks’: Heavy Force in Operation Iraqi Freedom,” Joint Force Quarterly, no. 39 (4th Quarter, 2005), pp. 89–90Google Scholar
, “For Army’s Future Combat Vehicles, Flying by C-130 No Longer Required,” National Defense Magazine (November 2005), at
, “US Army’s FCS Vehicles Designed to Adapt to IED Threat,” Defense News, December 4, 2007, at
, “Search Continues for Lighter Alternatives to Steel Armor,” National Defense Magazine (February 2008), at
, “Army Plans Series of Upgrades to FCS Manned Ground Vehicle Armor,” Inside the Army, January 26, 2009
, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Major Weapon Programs, Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-08-467SP (March 2008), p. 90
, “FCS Active Protection Is Troubled,” DoD Buzz, March 20, 2009, at
, “Black Day For Future Combat Systems As Funding Gutted,” Mars Daily, May 2, 2007, at
, “House Approves Cut to Army Modernization Plan,” Washington Post, May 18, 2007, p. D3
, “Army Launches Preliminary Design Review of FCS Manned Ground Vehicles,” Inside the Army, January 19, 2009
, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Major Weapon Programs, Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-08-467SP (March 2008), pp. 89–90
, “Changes to Army’s Modernization Program Come Amid Congressional Concern,” Government Executive, August 21, 2008, at
, “Learning from Contemporary Conflicts to Prepare for Future War,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, October 2008, at
, “With New Administration Looming, Army Stresses the Utility of FCS,” Inside the Army, December 22, 2008
, “Army Asks Broad Questions in Girding for QDR; Is FCS ‘Gold Plated?,’” Defense Alert (Inside Defense), February 20, 2009
, “Chiarelli Views FCS as ‘An Excellent Product,’ But a Target for Cuts,” Inside the Army, December 8, 2008
, “Gates Says ‘Money Spigot’ Closing; Refuses to Endorse FCS,” DoD Buzz, January 7, 2009, at
, “Young Criticizes ‘Flawed Contract Strategy’ Behind FCS Program,” Inside the Army, May 4, 2009
, “Mid-Range Munition and Active Protection System No Longer Funded,” Inside the Army, May 18, 2009
, “Army to Study Impacts of Cancelling FCS Complementary Programs,” Inside the Army, June 29, 2009
, “Pentagon Acquisition Chief Formally Cancels Future Combat Systems,” Inside the Army, June 29, 2009
, “Blue Ribbon Works Son of FCS,” DoD Buzz, June 11, 2009, at
, “Army’s Pouring $7B Into GCV,” DoD Buzz, February 4, 2010, at
, “Army Muses on GCV after Test-Drives in the Desert,” DoD Buzz, June 7, 2012, at
, “Pentagon Revamps Approach to US Army’s Next Combat Vehicle,” New York Times, January 17, 2013
, “Gates’ FCS Proposals May Affect Joint Tactical Radio System Plans,” Inside the Army, May 4, 2009
, “WIN-T PM Expects $51 Million Freed up after Meeting with Ash Carter,” Inside the Army, July 20, 2009
, “How to Blow $6 Billion on a Tech Project,” Ars Technica, June 18, 2012, at
, “It Only Took the Army 16 Years and 2 Wars to Deploy This Network,” Wired (Danger Room), June 28, 2012, at
, “After a Decade, Tests Underway of US Army Mobile C2 Network,” Defense News, May 8, 2012, at
, “WIN-T Increment 2: Cornerstone of Army Network Modernization [Army],” Interactive Intelligence (Contact Center Solutions, July 7, 2012), at
, Col. , with the Contemporary Operations Study Team, On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom, May 2003–January 2005 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2008), at Google Scholar
The US Army * Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, US Army Field Manual 3-24/Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-33.5 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2007)
, Lifting the Fog of Peace: How Americans Learned to Fight Modern War (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2010), esp. pp. 129–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War (Toronto: Simon & Schuster, January 2013)Google Scholar
, “Series: The Rise of the Counterinsurgents,” Washington Independent, July 27, 2008, at
, The Gamble: General David Petraeus and American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006–2008 (New York: Penguin Press, 2009)Google Scholar
, Mission Revolution: The US Military and Stability Operations (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, January 2012)
, Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars (Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 2007)Google Scholar
The US Army Capstone Concept: Operational Adaptability: Operating under Conditions of Uncertainty and Complexity in an Era of Persistent Conflict, 2016–2028, TRADOC Pam 525-3-0, December 21, 2009
, “The United States Army Operating Concept,” ReadPeriodicals, May 1, 2011, at
, “US Army Rethinks Last Decade’s Force Redesign; Fewer Trucks Needed,” Defense News, February 27, 2012, at
, “Army to Add More Infantry Battalions in 2013,” DoD Buzz, February 20, 2013, at
, “Army’s Plans to Relocate Gear Offer Map to Future Roles,” New York Times, July 27, 2012
, “Army Chief: We Have a Big Role in the Pacific, Too,” DoD Buzz, June 7, 2012, at
, and , “Air–Sea Battle: Clearing the Fog,” Armed Forces Journal (June 2012), at
, “Tough Wargame Exposes Army Shortfalls,” AOL Defense, June 12, 2012, at
, “Critics Worry Army’s New Global Operations Plan Poaches On Marines,” AOL Defense, October 16, 2012, at