military implications of new organizational sciences that examine internetted, nonhierarchical versus hierarchical management models are yet to be fully understood. TRADOC Pam 525-5, Force XXI Operations [1] Digitization of the battlefield is producing a in military affairs, but not the one the architects of the military future have in mind. It is occurring because the American military, more than any other, has seized on the digital information and is adapting it for combat as rapidly as possible. Using a carefully networked array of sensors, shooters, and automated information systems, the US armed forces expect to dominate 21st-century battlefields. Farther down the road, beyond 2010, the Army expects to marry these knowledge-rich attributes to new speed and agility, and to the increased range and lethality of new weapons. [2] These innovations are to become not merely part of, but the basis for, day-to-day military operations. What is likely to happen, however, is more than just a new way to conduct old business. The work of complexity theorists (notably Andrew Ilachinski, Margaret Wheatley, and J. M. Epstein) suggests that something wholly new is going on. [3] In this case, revolution is not just a metaphor for rapid change. It really is a in the basic sense, a new order of things that is sweeping away the old order whether we want it to or not. The implications of these new electronic networks for the structure of human institutions, including armies, are far more profound and far-reaching than most commentators seem to recognize. Dr. Wheatley, a behavioral theorist, put it this way: They [the US Army] have the technology to move information down to the lowest level so that it is possible for the men inside tanks to have as much information as their commanders have.... But once you give that information to tank crews, and they start working for their own safety, their own victory, how are they going to respond to commands from above? And what happens to battle strategy? Is it in the head of the commander, or do you just train the crews and let them figure it out for themselves as the situation demands? [4] Dr. Wheatley focuses on the decisionmaking questions posed by widespread use of automated information systems on the battlefield. This is a serious question, but it becomes urgent when the expected speed, agility, and lethality of the 21st-century Army is added to the equation. The urgency is generated not only by the ongoing digitizing of headquarters or large crewed vehicles such as tanks, but also by the effort to ensure that even individual soldiers are wired into the digital battlefield. [5] One important outcome of this may be the destruction of the long-standing, traditional military hierarchy. If so, one of the important instruments of this destruction could be the Land Warrior system, a set of personal information components designed to make individual soldiers an integral part of the digital battlefield by connecting them with Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below--the computer system and software at the heart of the Army's digitization effort. [6] The Land Warrior system in its test and evaluation version includes a helmet eyepiece that folds down, presenting a computer screen or the display from a combination sighting system and video camera on the soldier's rifle. A personal computer and two radio systems are worn underneath the rucksack. On the chest strap of the soldier's ballistic protection vest is a folding handgrip that acts as a computer mouse, allowing him to operate the radios and manipulate his computer. Land Warrior's capabilities are impressive, but they are directed toward traditional battlefield functions such as quicker response times, better reconnaissance, faster communications, more accurate artillery, and so forth. [7] All this will undoubtedly happen, but it won't happen in isolation. …
Read full abstract