"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

I'm inclined to agree. I think there is no real concept of what the
transformed military will look like, only that it will manage and share
information better ... maybe.

While I hate the overuse of the word, there is plenty of merit to the
concept, and the increased quality, scope, and distribution of information
as it applies to situational awareness is not only of great future promise,
but is also yielding benefits *now*. Examples of systems in current use
abound, from the USMC's datalinking of its AV-8B's Lightning targeting pod
imagery to ground combat HQ's during OIF to the use of digital C3I systems
in Army maneuver units up through the corps level and down through (at
present) the BTF or BCT levels. I have no doubt whatsoever that we are
better at desseminating information more rapidly today to the military
commanders who have to make decisions at all levels than we were ten years
ago. In 1996 I participated in my first division level Warfighter exercise,
and we were doing everything pretty much the same we had for the last thirty
or fourty years in terms of battle tracking; but by 1999 and 2000, when that
same division performed back-to-back corps level WFX's, we were utilizing
digital command and control packages that really did improve our SA, and
that of our subordinate units. Of course, achieving a more "network centric"
joint force is not the only transformational goal.

In regards to what the final transformed force will "look like"...it won't.
Look like anything, that is. Why? Because transformation is an open-ended
process; it will result in continuous evolution of the forces to face the
emerging and evolving threats. At least that is what DoD says:
(http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/libra...StrategyDoc1.p
df)

Brooks


R / John