Observatorio PSyD
El observatorio opina
23 de Febrero de 2018
Vanguardia de Ideas 23-02-2018
Isabel Adé Portero
Doctora en Historia Contemporánea
Anthony Cordesman, 21st Century Conflict: From “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA) to a “Revolution in Civil-Military Affairs” (RCMA), Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 15, 20108.
“The U.S. has learned many lessons in its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria—most of them the hard way. It has had to adapt the strategies, tactics, and force structures designed to fight regular wars to conflicts dominated by non-state actors. It has had to deal with threats shaped by ideological extremism far more radical than the communist movements it struggled against in countries like Vietnam. It has found that the kind of “Revolution in Military Affairs,” or RMA, that helped the U.S. deter and encourage the collapses of the former Soviet Union does not win such conflicts against non-state actors, and that it faces a different mix of threats in each such war—such as in cases like Libya, Yemen, Somalia and a number of states in West Africa.
The U.S. does have other strategic priorities: competition with China and Russia, and direct military threats from states like Iran and North Korea. At the same time, the U.S. is still seeking to find some form of stable civil solution to the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria—as well as the conflicts Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and West Africa. Reporting by the UN, IMF, and World Bank also shows that the mix of demographic, political governance, and economic forces that created the extremist threats the U.S. and its strategic partners are now fighting have increased in much of the entire developing world since the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, and the political upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011.
The Burke Chair at CSIS has prepared a working paper that suggests the U.S. needs to build on the military lessons it has learned from its "long wars" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries in order to carry out a new and different kind of “Revolution in Civil-Military Affairs,” or RCMA. This revolution involves very different kinds of warfighting and military efforts from the RMA. The U.S. must take full advantage of what it is learning about the need for different kinds of train and assist missions, the use of airpower, strategic communications, and ideological warfare.
At the same time, the U.S. must integrate these military efforts with new civilian efforts that address the rise of extremist ideologies and internal civil conflicts. It must accept the reality that it is fighting "failed state" wars, where population pressures and unemployment, ethnic and sectarian differences, critical problems in politics and governance, and failures to meet basic economic needs are a key element of the conflict. In these elements of conflict, progress must be made in wartime to achieve any kind of victory, and that progress must continue if any stable form of resolution is to be successful”.
https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/180215_RCMA_Report_cordesman.pdf?ANPFgt3cD.iG0KCBA.hw6tsbmGiqu5SD
Ignacio Fuente Cobo, “Las botas sobre el terreno. El debate sobre el futuro de las intervenciones militares”, Documento de Análisis 08/2018, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos (21/02/2018).
Resumen:
“Tras décadas de conflictos desde el final de la 2ª Guerra Mundial, el debate de las “botas sobre el terreno”, sigue estando abierto sin que exista una preferencia clara por la opción de las intervenciones militares externas, o por la delegación de la responsabilidad de las operaciones en las fuerzas locales. Los escenarios actuales muestran una nueva dimensión de la guerra caracterizada por conflictos que se perpetúan en el tiempo y en los que resulta muy difícil lograr la victoria. De ahí que, en unos momentos en los que las concepciones geopolíticas más realistas parecen imponerse en extensas zonas del mundo y en los que la tecnología asociada a la globalización ha conferido a la guerra un poder destructor impensable en otras épocas, resulta más necesario que nunca solucionar acertadamente este debate, si queremos evitar que los conflictos del futuro se conviertan en irresolubles”.
http://www.ieee.es/publicaciones-new/documentos-de-analisis/2018/DIEEEA08-2018.html
“The U.S. has learned many lessons in its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria—most of them the hard way. It has had to adapt the strategies, tactics, and force structures designed to fight regular wars to conflicts dominated by non-state actors. It has had to deal with threats shaped by ideological extremism far more radical than the communist movements it struggled against in countries like Vietnam. It has found that the kind of “Revolution in Military Affairs,” or RMA, that helped the U.S. deter and encourage the collapses of the former Soviet Union does not win such conflicts against non-state actors, and that it faces a different mix of threats in each such war—such as in cases like Libya, Yemen, Somalia and a number of states in West Africa.
The U.S. does have other strategic priorities: competition with China and Russia, and direct military threats from states like Iran and North Korea. At the same time, the U.S. is still seeking to find some form of stable civil solution to the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria—as well as the conflicts Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and West Africa. Reporting by the UN, IMF, and World Bank also shows that the mix of demographic, political governance, and economic forces that created the extremist threats the U.S. and its strategic partners are now fighting have increased in much of the entire developing world since the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, and the political upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011.
The Burke Chair at CSIS has prepared a working paper that suggests the U.S. needs to build on the military lessons it has learned from its "long wars" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries in order to carry out a new and different kind of “Revolution in Civil-Military Affairs,” or RCMA. This revolution involves very different kinds of warfighting and military efforts from the RMA. The U.S. must take full advantage of what it is learning about the need for different kinds of train and assist missions, the use of airpower, strategic communications, and ideological warfare.
At the same time, the U.S. must integrate these military efforts with new civilian efforts that address the rise of extremist ideologies and internal civil conflicts. It must accept the reality that it is fighting "failed state" wars, where population pressures and unemployment, ethnic and sectarian differences, critical problems in politics and governance, and failures to meet basic economic needs are a key element of the conflict. In these elements of conflict, progress must be made in wartime to achieve any kind of victory, and that progress must continue if any stable form of resolution is to be successful”.
https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/180215_RCMA_Report_cordesman.pdf?ANPFgt3cD.iG0KCBA.hw6tsbmGiqu5SD
Ignacio Fuente Cobo, “Las botas sobre el terreno. El debate sobre el futuro de las intervenciones militares”, Documento de Análisis 08/2018, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos (21/02/2018).
Resumen:
“Tras décadas de conflictos desde el final de la 2ª Guerra Mundial, el debate de las “botas sobre el terreno”, sigue estando abierto sin que exista una preferencia clara por la opción de las intervenciones militares externas, o por la delegación de la responsabilidad de las operaciones en las fuerzas locales. Los escenarios actuales muestran una nueva dimensión de la guerra caracterizada por conflictos que se perpetúan en el tiempo y en los que resulta muy difícil lograr la victoria. De ahí que, en unos momentos en los que las concepciones geopolíticas más realistas parecen imponerse en extensas zonas del mundo y en los que la tecnología asociada a la globalización ha conferido a la guerra un poder destructor impensable en otras épocas, resulta más necesario que nunca solucionar acertadamente este debate, si queremos evitar que los conflictos del futuro se conviertan en irresolubles”.
http://www.ieee.es/publicaciones-new/documentos-de-analisis/2018/DIEEEA08-2018.html
i._ade_23_02_2018.pdf
