Chief Warrant Officer 2 Kristopher Carroll
Clear definitions are crucial for enabling a shared understanding as we adapt to modern times. This article argues that simply rebranding old military concepts with new terminology, without critically examining and learning from history, risks creating the illusion of innovation and leads us to repeat past mistakes. Without grounding our terminology in historical understanding, we risk repeating failures and overlooking successes from prior conflicts. It also presents examples of conventional forces - special operations forces integration, interoperability, and interdependence (CF-SOF I3) employed in the 20th and 21st centuries. The key argument is that effective adaptation to contemporary challenges requires both doctrinal clarity and historical insight.
Recent decades have seen major shifts in U.S. military focus and terminology. From 2001 to 2021, efforts centered on nation-building, counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Now, as great power competition (GPC) has risen in prominence, China and Russia challenge the U.S. across political, military, economic, and informational domains. New doctrinal terms such as large-scale combat operations (LSCO), multi-domain operations (MDO), and joint forceable entry operations (JFEO) are prevalent. Conventional forces (CF), special operations forces (SOF), and multinational partners are collaborating for GPC. Many of these concepts have historical counterparts, reinforcing the need to learn from the past as we adapt to current challenges.
No comments:
Post a Comment