Given the obvious growth in capability offered by legacy unmanned systems like the MQ-1 Predator, what kinds of unmanned systems do you see being introduced into future forces?

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the requirement for the right information being delivered at the very lowest level of command. Many of our successes against al Qaeda are due to accurate and timely intelligence, and a good portion of that can be attributed to the phenomenal success of unmanned systems. The MQ-1 Predator is of course the system that comes to mind, but there is a wide assortment of Unmanned Aerial Systems [UASs] on the battlefield today, and I think it has changed the way we fight forever.

When we first deployed the Predator, I think it was seen simply as something that was overhead and provided [real-time] pictures. But like all new systems, the leaders on the battlefield figured out how to maximize its capabilities. The SOF forces under Gen. Stan McChrystal probably evolved those capabilities the fastest of anyone after 9/11. As a result, UASs immediately became an integral piece of the intelligence picture and situational awareness environment. We learned a lot, including that the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance [ISR] mission couldn’t be done with one or even a few UAS orbits. Getting the complete ISR picture takes multiple UAS orbits, and the data from those systems needs to be fused with that from manned capabilities like TF Odin [Observe, Detect, Identify, And Neutralize], as well as HUMINT and SIGINT data. I think the future for manned and unmanned reconnaissance systems is great.

How do you see these unmanned aerial systems being assimilated into the so-called “balanced” force that will emerge in the years ahead, especially with the wide variety of UASs that have been procured since September 11?

I think that is the problem, and I was in a fairly lengthy discussion about that very point just a few weeks ago. I think that we need to decide the types and numbers of UAS systems and capabilities we want in the future, and how they are going to be organized. Those ad hoc units that meet a future requirement need to be organized into TO&E units when they return. Today we have a plethora of manned and unmanned systems providing a vital capability in Iraq and Afghanistan. Someday we’re going to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and at that point, we’re going to have to catalog and categorize all these systems and build the formations around them so that we ensure that the right UAS will be given the right mission.

Not all of those systems currently on the battlefield are going to play in a major regional contingency. We’ll have plenty of opportunities for UASs, from humanitarian support to strike missions. But in the interim, I believe we will continue to grow our manned and unmanned airborne reconnaissance fleets to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as much as we can get over there, because they are crucial to the conduct of this war.

We’ve got to make sure that we’re maximizing everything that we have purchased for the conflicts since 9/11. The so-called supplementals have served us well with new equipment, but not everything should come home. On the technology side, I think that the future for UAVs of all kinds is really bright. The evolution of the UAV from the first day we went into Afghanistan back in 2001 to today is just unbelievable! As I look to the next 10 years, it is going to be even more dramatic.

What kinds of people do you see the Army and Marines needing in the future to fight the kinds of wars you expect America to fight in the decades ahead?

The secret to success is always people, and I am constantly impressed by the people who choose to serve. The No. 1 SOF truth is that, “Humans are more important than hardware.” All the armed services have transformed themselves for this time of persistent conflict, while having to keep in mind the potential for future peer competitors. Tomorrow’s soldier and Marine on the battlefield is going to have to be a problem solver: They have got to be as mature as possible, and they have got to understand the big picture of just why we are doing what we are doing. They [also] have got to understand the importance of [local] culture, and how to win the support of the [indigenous] people. They have to be comfortable training foreign forces, as well as fighting [with] them. Strong, well-trained leadership is required at every level. And all the time our forces have to remain extremely lethal, for defeating a threat will always be the priority. Sounds like today’s [Army] Special Forces soldier … doesn’t it?

Back in 2001, a journalist friend of mine described American soldiers and Marines as the most valuable and most poorly resourced assets in the whole of DoD. Can you take us forward to the present day, and tell us what you think of how well trained and equipped our ground combat personnel are today?

Well, I don’t think we can ever do enough to ensure that every soldier [and Marine] that goes on the battlefield is properly trained and equipped. That is their best chance for success and survival, and I would emphasize the training piece first. I would tell you that we are light-years ahead of the way we resourced ground personnel 20 years ago. If you just look at pictures of an Army or Marine unit walking down the street in Iraq today, you see it. World-class body armor, a 6- or 8-pound radio that he can pick up and talk to an aircraft overhead, or in some cases even turn it into a satellite communications terminal and blast signals all the way back to the States. While I know there is some debate about the M16/M4 and that it may be time for us to move on to a new weapons system, look at the rail system on the front of that and all the things we’ve hung on there to make it more effective. Laser sights, flashlights, and all sorts of things that make it a more effective weapon. Everything that you see that soldier [or Marine] carrying is first class, and better than we have ever had before.