Warfare as a Disruptive Technology

This is not a political rant. It is an observation about warfare's current state, regardless of whether you are in favor of, or opposed to, the current war in Iraq.


The term "disruptive technology" is often applied to something that changes the terms on which a battle over a marketplace is fought. For example, O'Reilly published a book called "Peer-To-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies" that discussed how P2P systems are implemented to, say, ensure anonymity or availability of censored material. Napster was disruptive because it lowered barriers to entry into the music distribution business. You didn't need the rights to the music or a big server to distribute the music. More importantly, Napster changed the distribution process and the decision-making process. Bands could publish their music instantly without a record contract, and users could obtain music even if it wasn't available directly from the rights-holders. The speed and ease of Napster's distribution model changed the rules of the game for participants, even the unwilling ones (i.e., the music companies).

So how has the speed with which warfare is conducted changed the rules of geopolitics, domestic politics, and society? The effect on the battlefield is obvious. A favorite phrase of war pundits and planners is, "The U.S. was able to get inside the opposition's decision cycle." This means that the U.S. was able to deploy troops and direct attacks before an effective response could be formulated much less implemented. Most U.S. citizens consider this a good thing even if they are opposed to the war. Even those opposed to the war generally say, "I hope it is over quickly," not, "I hope it drags on forever just to make Bush look bad." Likewise, although there are raging debates about exactly what is happening on the ground in Iraq, clearly, wars are being fought differently today by the U.S. military than by any other fighting force in the history of the world.


Clearly, the U.S. has superior technology, whether in terms of surveillance, communications, or firepower. But battlefield superiority is not in and of itself disruptive. For example, when the U.S. was the only country in the world with an atomic bomb (circa 1945) there were still checks on the President's use of the bomb. As history proved, it was relatively easy for other countries to develop or obtain their own atomic bombs. Furthermore, the atomic bomb is considered so horrific and serious as to preclude its use on a casual basis. Even George W. Bush wouldn't drop a nuclear bomb without consulting Congress. There are no such hesitations when using J-DAMs and similar "convential" weaponry. A disruptive technology, however, not only plays the game better than its predescessors, it changes the rules of the game entirely.


So what rules of the game have changed? For one thing, the U.S. military is not only "inside the decision cycle of the opposition" they are inside the decision cycle of the legislators and citizens of their own country. If a war can be initiated and nearly concluded in three weeks, debate becomes largely moot. I believe the U.S. President has to consult with Congress within 30 or 60 days of a troop deployment. Within 30 days, President Bush is already calling aircraft carriers back from the Persian Gulf to their home ports. The U.S. Congress, therefore, has been reduced to spectators despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution gives them sole power to declare war.

Likewise, what is seen as largely a very messy, dirty war in the rest of the world hasn't had many consequences for the US populace. Charles Rangel, a Congressman from New York State pointed out that very few members of Congress have children serving in the all-volunteer U.S. military. Furthermore, although many Americans have familily members and neighbors serving, few of us know service men and women who have died in a U.S. war in the last decade. The 1992 Gulf War (Desert Storm), Bosnia, and Kosovo saw historically low military deaths for U.S. troops. Perhaps opposition forces realize that even small numbers of casualties, as in Somalia, can send the U.S. packing. But the message sent by the latest war in Iraq is, "American troops will take so few casualties that the American public's resistance to the war will be minimal. So don't mess with Texas."



So another important check on U.S. military power and intervention, the U.S. public, is largely neutralized. Even if there were massive American casualties, a short war precludes much organized opposition (or time for dissent to foment). Short-term propaganda is sufficient to hide the messay details from the public until it too becomes moot. And if there were massive casualties from, say, chemical or biological weapons, the U.S. public would have even more confidence that their cause was just.



I started this blog saying that it is not a political rant, and I maintain that still. I'm not saying whether the changes are good or bad for Americans and for the world. That is for others to decide. But I am here to remind everyone of the real changes that have taken place in the implications and conduct of warfare outside the battlefield because of the changes in the conduct of warfare on the battlefield.

What have you got to say about it?