“So as you come forward into the future we are transitioning out of a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he continued. “Obviously we are still engaged in Afghanistan and we are very conscious of that. And we are very clear in our own minds that we will remain engaged there as long as the nation requires it of us to achieve the effects that the president and others have outlined for us. But as we begin looking to the future, we recognize first that we have a much more broad strategic guidance that the president promulgated in January of this year that lays out 10 specified missions.”
Released by the White House on Jan. 3, 2012, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense” identifies those specific missions as:
- Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare;
- Deter and Defeat Aggression;
- Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges;
- Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction;
- Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space;
- Maintain a Safe, Secure and Effective Nuclear Deterrent;
- Defend the Homeland and Provide Support to Civil Authorities;
- Provide a Stabilizing Presence;
- Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations; and
- Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief and Other Operations.
In addition to the 10 formally specified missions, some observers see additional requirements emerging, as in the situation where President Barack Obama has clearly made “prevention of atrocities and genocide” an important item of national policy.
Soldiers and sailors participate in a recent humanitarian operation in Haiti. Joint operations like this will be a lot more common in the future and will also include multinational partners and other government organizations, according to future scenarios played out at the Training and Doctrine Command-sponsored Winter Wargame Unified Quest 2013, held in February 2013. U.S. Army photo
According to Hix, current Army strategic studies have examined these missions against an operating environment “which we find to be increasingly complex; driven in great part by speed and breadth of human interaction. Certainly the speed at which things have occurred in the Middle East with the ‘Arab Spring’ is emblematic of the acceleration of events, and the challenges that provides our national policymakers and the military forces that must respond to their direction.
“So, from that analysis, as articulated in the Army Capstone Concept, we are moving to an Army capable of doing many things well,” he stated. “We contribute in significant ways to all 10 of those specified strategic tasks that the president set out in January of [2012].”
DOTMLPF
In fulfilling the intent to guide Army modernization efforts, the December 2012 Army Capstone Concept also offers some broad projections across the range of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leader development and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) issues that will further solidify the foundation for the Army of 2030.
Secretary of the Army John McHugh listens as Commander of the Combined Arms Center Lt. Gen. David G. Perkins briefs during a visit at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, to discuss how the future force will train to fight and win our nation’s wars, April 20, 2012, at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Bernardo Fuller
In the case of doctrine, for example, the concept explains, “Over the last decade, the Army has learned valuable lessons and developed a better understanding of 21st century warfare. With the assistance of web-based technology, the Army has a unique opportunity to codify this knowledge in doctrine and preserve it for future generations. To truly revolutionize the way the Army develops and shares doctrine, it must first restructure the body of knowledge and identify the principles critical to the Army as the nation’s land force of decisive action. The Army will continue to pursue Doctrine 2015, a process which will transform its doctrinal base to deliver critical knowledge to the point of need that is concise, accessible, and current. This process streamlines both the number and length of doctrinal manuals while leveraging technologies to inject fresh and contemporary knowledge into Army doctrine, changes that have been developed, applied, and proven in the field by soldiers.”
Additionally, a number of significant force design changes are also postulated under organizational evolution. Specific examples include increasing the combat power and ability to pool resources for the brigade combat teams “to gain efficiencies where prudent.”