Introduction (Moderator)
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us at the Society of Military History conference. Today’s panel, “From the Cold War to the New Cold War: U.S. Strategy and Operations in a Global Environment, 1990 to 2020,” seeks to dive into the nuances of military history during this crucial time. We will look at the strategic and operational problems the United States has encountered, emphasizing Desert Storm, the Global War on Terror, and the re-emergence of peer or near-peer rivals. We will also continue our debate during the Q&A session.
Presenter 1
The principles of war, which are profoundly established in military strategy, have undergone a dynamic transformation in the context of 21st-century conflicts. The post-Cold War period necessitated a reevaluation of these ideas to correspond with the ever-changing geopolitical context. Traditionally, the concept of Mass has stressed overwhelming force, as shown by the coalition in Desert Storm. However, the Global War on Terror required a paradigm change. Specialized units and precise strikes were essential, stressing the necessity for flexibility and agility (AMH 284). Furthermore, the notion of Objective, a cornerstone in military planning, experienced a modification. The military’s explicit goals in Desert Storm were territorial gains.
In contrast, the Global War on Terror provided less clear goals, including counterinsurgency and counterterrorism activities. Historical principles influenced military exercises, but their applicability in 21st-century wars must be assessed. Mass is one example. Desert Storm’s overwhelming coalition force demonstrated mass. The Global War on Terrorism shifted toward nimble, specialized groups. Mass must change with combat. While war’s fundamental concepts persisted, their implementation in the 21st century demanded a rethink. These concepts had to be adaptable because contemporary battles are dynamic and need a diversified strategy to attain strategic objectives.
Presenter 2
Cyber, drones, and social media have significantly impacted post-Cold War U.S. activities. The capacity of the U.S. military to exploit technology breakthroughs was critical in attaining goals, particularly in counterinsurgency activities. Cyber warfare, a new element, has significantly impacted offensive and defensive strategy. The interconnection of contemporary civilization requires sophisticated cybersecurity measures while presenting the military with a powerful instrument for information collection and adversary disruption (U.S. Army Center of Military History). With their surveillance and precise attack capabilities, drones have transformed the terrain of leadership and engagement. These uncrewed aerial vehicles were critical in reducing collateral damage and improving the military’s capacity to attack with accuracy.
Social media, a non-military area, became necessary. Its capacity to control public perception and narratives greatly affected military activities. The military has to act in the information sphere since social media shapes local and international war views. Modern battlefields were scattered, disrupting command and control mechanisms. A more flexible military was needed due to decentralized decision-making and communication. Modern warfare required a comprehensive and integrated strategy that acknowledged technological advances and the importance of information in influencing the battlefield.
Presenter 3
The United States was involved in battles with diverse goals, ranging from liberating Kuwait to counterterrorism activities. The link between policy objectives and military strategy is obvious, but we must critically evaluate overall performance in accomplishing these goals. Military force efficacy is determined by design and congruence with larger policy objectives (AMH 298). Military force’s purpose has evolved beyond conventional concepts of state-to-state combat. The delicate relationship between strategy, operations, and tactics became clear in attaining these complex policy goals.
The United States military used a combination of conventional and unconventional means, emphasizing the need for flexibility in the face of emerging threats (AMH 305). Counterinsurgency operations must emphasise capturing hearts and minds, highlighting the intricate interaction between military activities and larger policy objectives. While problems remained, the United States displayed some success in accomplishing specific policy goals.
Discussion Among All Participants
Moderator (You): Thank you all for your insightful presentations. Now, let’s delve into the broader discussion, examining the connections and disconnections between the experiences of soldiers at the tactical level and those responsible for strategy and policy. How might this dynamic impact the achievement of strategic objectives?
Presenter 1: At the tactical level, troops cope with the problems of the battlefield in real-time. Their viewpoint is anchored on the reality of warfighting. The mismatch occurs when strategic choices, often taken at a higher level, must adequately address the tactical context’s complexities. For example, the success of counterinsurgency methods may only correspond with broader strategic aims if the strategy has a full grasp of local dynamics. This gap might result in a misalignment of activities, impeding the fulfilment of overall strategic goals.
Presenter 2: I agree, but we must also understand that the strategic and policy levels are saddled with a more significant viewpoint. Their judgments must balance geopolitical concerns, international relationships, and long-term stability. The difficulty is in striking a balance. Effective civil-military ties are critical to bridging this gap and ensuring that tactical experiences influence strategic choices.
Moderator (You): Transitioning into our next question about the role of leadership in modern war, what do you all see as effective or ineffective leadership in America’s recent wars? How do the requirements of leadership change at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels?
Presenter 3: Tactical leadership requires building a solid unit, reacting to changing circumstances, and making quick judgments. Ineffective leadership may damage morale and communication. This leadership level must emphasize wartime values like unity of command and simplicity. Leaders must comprehend the mission strategically to coordinate units and capabilities at the operational level. Ineffectiveness at this level may lead to disconnected efforts and underutilization of integrated activities. Strategic leaders require vision, political savvy, and global awareness. Strategic mistakes may harm a campaign’s direction and success. Each degree of leadership requires different talents and traits.
Moderator (You): Excellent points raised. In conclusion, these varied viewpoints show the complexity of modern warfare. Our discussion of Desert Storm and the Global War on Terrorism reveals how intricate and dynamic current fighting is. The link between strategy, operations, tactics, leadership, and conflicts requires nuance and flexibility. Military strength, geopolitical insight, ethical leadership at all levels, and combat adaptability are needed for success. American military history from 1990 to 2020 illustrates that battle knowledge is crucial. Modern battles need agility, informed decision-making, and a solid tactical-strategic relationship. We appreciate your contributions to this insightful look into U.S. military policy and operations.
Work Cited
Chapter 12 Rebuilding the Army,
Chapter 13 Beyond the Wall
Chapter 14 The Global War on Terrorism
Operation DESERT STORM | U.S. Army Center of Military History
https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/desert-storm/index.html
write