How high tech is shaping America’s military strategy: the pros and cons. When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, mindful of America’s two-month rout of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, sat down with war planners to prepare for a U.S.-led thrust into Iraq, he had a vision of how the unfolding conflict would play out. A devotee of a new theory of warfare that places enormous stress on air power, computer communications, and small, agile ground forces, the Pentagon chief began work on a battle plan that was a marvel of technological prowess. Ever since he joined the Administration, fresh from a second career as a successful CEO, Rumsfeld had been fighting skirmishes with his military brass. His notion of “transformation” — Rumspeak for a leaner, more technologically driven force that leapfrogs generations of Cold War weaponry — met with resistance from generals and congressional porkmeisters alike. Defenders of the status quo insisted that future wars would be won the old-fashioned way — with lethal firepower and plenty of U.S. grunts on the ground. The debates intensified as the prospect of war in Iraq drew nearer and Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush signaled his determination to oust Saddam Hussein. Full Story
About OODA Analyst
OODA is comprised of a unique team of international experts capable of providing advanced intelligence and analysis, strategy and planning support, risk and threat management, training, decision support, crisis response, and security services to global corporations and governments.