In the wake of 9/11, many new military advancements were created in order to fight a brand new enemy: extremist terrorist groups. Terrorism is defined as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Jordan, p. 267). Instead of country fighting against country, the adversaries the American military face are smaller, splintered, and not affiliated with any specific government. They fight for an ideal, not for land, and the governing bodies of the countries in which they reside have no official political or economic ties with them. As a result, it is far easier for them to hide, making traditional military methods ineffective. Because of the need to find new ways to combat terrorism, military spending in the United States should be increased.
According to John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham, "What happens in Afghanistan directly affects our safety here at home" (McCain et al., 2012). Abandoning the state will have similar, disastrous consequences for our national security. Our military must remain in Afghanistan, otherwise it gives the Taliban and al-Qaeda more political ammunition to strike back at the US years down the road. These senators and members of the Armed Forced Committee believe wholeheartedly that military action should remain in Afghanistan, due to the veiled threat of retaliation should we leave. To that end, the US military should remain funded as best we can.
The US campaign of Afghanistan in 2001 was the first showcase of this new military, consisting of small land forces (often infantry and armored forces) acting in conjunction with unmanned drones, which became their eyes and ears (Jordan, p. 68). The toppling of Iraq used the exact same military strategy, and was successful in effecting a government change within a single day (Bolt et al., 2008). Another attribute of this new paradigm of military action was the formation of a coalition of nations which would provide military and intelligence assistance however possible. In the case of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan became staging areas for US air assets, as temporary bases were formed there (Jordan, p. 68). From these points, friendly forces could then act on potential threats from miles away. This change in organization made warfare safer, as military leadership is kept as far away from the fight as possible, leaving infantry as the only real physical presence in the battlefield.
The advent of robotic drone technology has completely revolutionized the way in which warfare is conducted. These small, agile, technologically advanced drones have the ability to fly high overhead, travel long distances, provide accurate surveillance from hundreds of feet in the air, and even occasionally carry weapons. Advancements in wireless technology have made it incredibly easy to communicate with troops across vast distances, and unmanned drones can provide real-time support to any friendly presence. This transformation is somewhat necessary in order to create a battlefield that is devoid of friendly casualties. The more we find we can use automated weapons and long-shot artillery to attack our enemies from a distance, the fewer troops we can put in harm’s way. This should be the primary goal of a revolution in military affairs, therefore it is entirely required that we do whatever we can to emphasize (and fund) the use of drones and automated weaponry (Jordan, p. 326).
It is becoming increasingly clear that the presence of the human individual in a military campaign is becoming obsolete, with the use of drones and AC-130 gunships, all of whom can tactically and surgically take out enemies from further away than they can reach. They also provide needed intelligence, which is a vital component of military action, and therefore an important part of this new Revolution of Military Affairs. What’s more, a greater proportion of troops can be allotted to domestic defense, where an automated surgical strike is less feasible, due to its likelihood of creating domestic civilian casualties. At the same time, drone technology is expensive and time-consuming to create and maintain; this requires funding to pay for the drones themselves and the personnel to complement and repair them.
In conclusion, due to the need for an emphasis on more nontraditional warfare, military spending should continue as is (if not be increased, to allow for greater research into drone technology and effective ways to keep troops alive and accomplish objectives). While drones are beginning to change the way we wage war and gather intelligence on our enemies, they must be used in greater frequency and for a greater number of tasks. As much as we can, it is important to keep troops out of the fray as much as possible and rely more on these unmanned solutions. Increasing these capabilities will go a long way toward decreasing the number of casualties for American troops, as well as creating more efficient means of toppling potential threats to national security. At the same time, these changes must happen gradually, so as not to upset the already established order of military protocol, and ensure that these greater focuses on military technology are without flaws.
References
Bolt, Paul J. et al. (2008). American Defense Policy, Eighth Edition. Johns Hopkins University
Press. ISBN-13: 978-0801880940.
Jordan, Amos A. et al. (2009). American National Security, Sixth Edition. Johns Hopkins
McCain, J., Lieberman, J. I., & Graham, L. "Sustaining success in Afghanistan." Washington
Post. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/steps-to-ensure-we-achieve-success-in-afghanistan/2012/03/20/gIQAJiNXSS_story.html>.
