Fighting the Last War

And in 1940, the Wehrmacht ran right over it.

The innovators of the current war tend to be the losers of the last one. In Germany's case, their economy and their military were both shattered by the WW I and were left with the knowledge that their efforts had not been enough. It's a lot easier to rebuild when you don't have to deal with old infrastructure. It's a lot easier to think creatively when your former philosophies have been proven to be failures. It's a lot easier to take risks when you feel there is nothing to lose.

Everyone will fight the last war to some extent because the attacker will have tailored his attack to take advantage of the defender's weaknesses and it will take some time for the defender to evaluate the attack and develop new defenses.

The United States is often accused of fighting the last war. I think that we actually do, sometimes, but anymore, I think it's more likely that we fight the war that we WISH we could fight. Our society is still firmly convinced that you can solve almost any political problem with the proper application of air power.

Our ground forces seem to have a pretty good cycle of decision for assessing a mission or an attack, and developing the appropriate response. In Panama and Grenada, we used primarily light Infantry forces, supported by appropriate armor and air assets. In the Gulf War, we used the type of heavy armored, combined arms assault that suited that terrain and opposition. In Afghanistan, we've use a tailored response; bombs and missiles to soften the enemy and destroy his ability to focus his response, and specialized ground troops to go in and find the people who are actually our targets.

We will have failures in the future. We must guard against complacency, which leads to lack of progress. But somebody, somewhere, is always preparing for the next war and our forces, even as they fight the current war, are actively preparing for the next one, too.

Go To Page: 1 2