Each of the aforementioned warfare nomenclatures and frameworks that are being used to describe warfare today are propagated in the Virtual Domain and are further shaped in the Cognitive and Moral Domains, before they are manifested in the Physical Domain environments, which include: air, land, sea, and space. ![]() STAFF/AFP/Getty Images Asymmetric Warfare, Political Warfare, Gray Zone Operations, Hybrid Warfare, Cyber Warfare, Cognitive Maneuver, et al., are competing heuristics that are bantered about continuously in security think tanks and in the halls of the Pentagon in an attempt to frame and name the paradigm for warfare in this era. ![]() The value of mechanization versus the horse and the application of air power on modern battlefields during the 1919-1939 inter-war period are notable historical examples where new technological advantages were not immediately appreciated by “the experts.” The logic for warfare in our time is askew, as we have seen at previous junctures in history. is fighting the wrong war, with the wrong policies, strategies, doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures. The United States’ leaders, who have responsibility to win the Nation’s wars, have lost personal mastery for warfare in our time. Part I may be read here.)įraming and naming the Virtual War paradigm is a challenge for leaders today. Banach, distilling the essence of his original article. ![]() ( Editor’s Note: Originally published under the same title in Small Wars Journal, Mad Scientist Laboratory is pleased to present Part II of our guest post by COL(R) Stefan J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |