Challenges for Military Organizations in Peacetime and Wartime - Essay Example

Challenges of Military Innovations During Peacetime and Wartime Introduction The questions that arise are whether innovations in military organizations are required during peacetime or must they be made during the course of a war. Military innovations refer to conceptual changes in operations of specific combat arms and mutual relation between different combat arms. The idea is to pave the way for new mission by abandoning traditional missions. Such innovations define war in a new way and restructure the relation between different factors of the military organization and the enemy. The operations are designed so that they are consistent with the new ideas. Innovations focus is on major military activities based on which war plans are made. This paper attempts to outline various issues and challenges that are involved in the innovation process in militaries during wartime and peacetime. Military innovations are subjected to various challenges. The general belief that defeat in war provides incentive for military innovation is not technically correct. The complexities in the bureaucratic system during peacetimes make innovation extremely difficult. There are many cases where military innovations have taken place after victory in a war, and not defeat. When officers are incorporated in the army they are prepared to follow orders without question. They become so habituated with the existing concepts that with passage of years the ideas get deeply embedded within their minds so much so that no amount of reasoning or argument can make them abandon the established ideas. Only by studying the nature of military organizations, the need for innovations can be explained. For instance, in the U.S. armed forces there are certain specific characteristics. Each service does not function only to satisfy their self-interests, but all the sub-units work together to make wartime strategies. Each unit of service like infantry, aviation etc. has their own cultural thinking regarding execution of a war, and also how the other units should function. A healthy military organization is the one in which all units of service arrive at a common agreement regarding their strategies during wartime. However, complexities arise since there is no clear indication of which unit of service has the dominant professional activity. Since each unit of service has specific mission, therefore fights occur in determining the priority of each unit’s roles and missions. Conflict of opinion also takes place regarding the shape of any future war and how each service should be utilized. Since the twentieth century there have been challenges affecting the military in line with operations, technology and organizational and conceptual factors during peacetimes in military camps. Organizations took time to recover from the challenges that they faced and had to apply different strategies to achieve their visions in order to succeed. One of the problems associated with making changes during innovations in peacetime is the fact that many parties were involved in the process of innovation. Many of the military challenges experienced in ancient times still exist. Challenges of military innovations during peacetime Since the early fourteenth century, the Western military has gone through various innovation periods which remained consistent in the twentieth century. The factors inducing military innovations include fast technological developments, increased funds allocated for military research, and the enhanced scientific methods for assessing the performance and artillery system of military organizations. The combination of technology and effective management makes innovations inevitable. During the 1920s and 1930s in spite of limited budgets and general aversion towards military organizations, there were significant innovations. The U.S. and Japanese navies strengthened their power with carriers that accompanied fleets. Likewise, the Germans “developed an armored force based on a combined-arms concept”. One major challenging factor is a nation’s geographic position in the global map, which is an important element that helps in designing its security requirements. For most part of history, U.S. stayed alienated from overseas nations thereby remaining uninvolved in all overseas political disputes. Since the nation remained invulnerable to external threats, it never focused on balancing the power structure. Even during the years following the World War I, America had a lackluster attitude towards national defense since it was geographically separated from Europe and Asia. The difficulties that the other countries faced regarding any kind of attack on the U.S. were the main reasons why the country allocated limited budget for defense sector. For instance, during the early 1920s Major General Frank W. Coe of the Coast Artillery Corps attempted to garner the attention of the nation regarding increasing the budget for antiaircraft artillery. His expressed concern of aerial bombardment was largely discounted by other professionals since they could not imagine any nation capable of inflicting aerial attacks on the U.S. In fact, for the maximum period during the Interwar years, the U.S. depended on “naval patrols and the Army’s Coast Artillery Corps and air forces to protect the coastline”. It was only during the late 1930s that the U.S. defense policy makers began to feel concerned about the nation’s security when the Germans were preparing to make economic and military penetration of South America. The U.S. then concentrated on tightening the defense arrangements for air, ground and sea of the Panama canal and the Caribbean region. On the other hand Great Britain, due to its geographical position of being close to other European countries, historically exhibited sufficient concern regarding defense against attacks. One thing to be noted here is that Great Britain’s greatest and constant fear of aerial attacks by German bombers led to the country’s development of technologies for antiaircraft defense like radar and proximity fuze much ahead of the U.S. In fact during the World War II, it was Britain’s technological innovations that helped United States to make antiaircraft strategies. Geography also dictates the use of weapons like the U.S. and the Great Britain focused their military budgets on building aircrafts to strengthen their air power. Challenges of military innovations during wartime During wartime, the innovation programs are minimal since many masterminds are engaged in the war and the innovation activities that are undertaken are based on the progress of the war. In such scenarios, innovations such as introduction of heavier machines, change of combat strategies and technical changes are introduced to change the outcome of war. In such situations only the military leaders are involved in pronouncing a new innovative strategy based on the experiences in the battlefields. The innovation strategies usually bring success but in some occasions, they lead to unexpected turn in the fight thus leading to failure in war. The new measures of effectiveness are channeled towards the activities in the war field that marks the progress of the mission. Other innovative strategies like learning new fighting methods become ineffective and inappropriate since it is too late to incorporate new skills into military agents with limited time at the war. The problems that are associated with innovation during war include intelligence collection and disputes from inability to change and learn by some intellectuals in organization leadership. These activities make wartimes extremely difficult for the organization. During the war with Vietnam, there were major innovations in the field of air combat thus proving to be an important turning point in the history of air force. Before Vietnam, American army was largely infantry fighting with lighter rifles by eliminating some of their bulky supporting equipments. The military helicopter came to prominence during the Vietnam War. Major innovations were made during this war like different kinds of choppers including troops and guns carrying helicopters, helicopters capable of close firing and tank-filling capacity while attacking. During the Afghanistan and Iraq war, the US realized the complexities of distant land. The war occurred through various phases, each one of which affected the military strategies to achieve objectives. Other than the disharmony between strategies and objectives, the U.S military was also confronted with the challenge of rise and fall of enemy troops which was always larger in summers than winters. Since 2001, the U.S enhanced its military efforts not only by increasing troops but also involving an assortment of civilian and military organizations. This improved the strategic ever-widening activities by both civilians and the military. Modern military professionals In the last few years, U.S military has notably lacked in military research and innovations. The concern about national defense that previously provoked intellectuals and scientists to progressively work towards innovative strategies seems to have melted. The probable conclusion is that today there are less technological challenges that energize the skilled researchers to pool their talents in purse of innovations that will strengthen the defensive power of the nation. One explanation can be that small research projects are being financed, which fail to impart great shows, instead of financing larger projects. U.S military history says that civilians always had a significant role in innovations. In the past decade there has been an increasing gap between civilian scientists and the army which needs to be bridged. Conclusion It is correctly assumed that military strategies seem very different during wartime and peacetime. In the former, the time horizon is much shorter and civilians have more freedom of action like official formalities become much easier to surpass. However, during wartime it becomes difficult to gather specific information about innovations. On the other hand, during peacetime innovations occur over a longer period with limited influence from civilian officials. Most of the times it is expected that military innovations should be made to enhance military strategies; however incessant political pressure in order to reduce budget exert greater influence on military research. References Farrell, Theo, Osinga, Frans & Russell, James A. Military Adaptation in Afghanistan. California: Stanford Univ. Press, 2013 Greenwald, Bryon E. “The Problems of Peacetime Innovations.” School of Advanced Military Studies. October 25, 1995, June 5, 2014. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a300755.pdf Murray, Williamson. Military adaptation in war: with fear of change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011 Murray, Williamson & Millett, Allan R. Military innovation in the interwar period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998 Rosen, Stephen Peter. “New ways of war: understanding military innovation.” International Security 13, No.1 (1988): 134-168 Rotter, Andrew J. Light at the end of the tunnel: A Vietnam War Anthology. Rowman & Littlefield, 1999 Zachary, G. Pascal. “U.S. lacks rallying drive for military innovation.” New York Times, July 1, 2007, June 6, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/ worldbusiness/01iht-innovate.1.6429239.html?_r=1& Read More