The Army's Future Role

Two very interesting posts on the future of the US army and it's role in protecting American security. First we have Steven Metz arguing that we will see a decline in the relevance of the US army as its traditional role of taking and holding physical territory becomes less and less vital. While there has been little discussion of this shift within army circles, as non-state entities increasingly become the greatest threats to the US, the need for the tank and cavalry divisions will diminish.

The second article is by Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal arguing that Metz is correct and that people such as John Nagl and Gian Gentile are wrong. Nagl and Gentile have argued that the army must adapt to COIN or remain ready to fight a major land war, respectively, but Cohen agrees with Metz that the face of wars fought by the US will change in the future. He argues that COIN is unlikely to dominate as the US people do not have the fortitude to continue fighting that type of war and that major land wars are a thing of the past.

Cohen and Metz are right to a certain extent but I think forget that eight years ago few people thought that COIN would be a necessary tool in the American Army's repetoire for the near future. Thus attempting to predict what type of forces and tactics will be required is by no means a sure thing and having forces that can fight both COIN and major land wars is importnat for America's security for the forseeable future.

Also, wars force adaptation and while they are correct that many of America's threats will come from non-state actors, that does not mean that individual tactics related to either school of thought won't be necessary. For instance, COIN-tactics could well be very useful (and indeed some are being introduced) in fighting the cartels in Mexico. Thus Cohen and Metz, while right in thinking that the army needs to rethink its role, are less correct in suggesting the time of the US army as passed.