In the 15 years following 9/11, the U.S. Army pivoted away from its traditional role and took on the challenge presented by new missions and enemies. The Cipher Brief spoke with Lt. General Guy Swan about the gains and sacrifices that have forged the Army of the present and the near future.
The Cipher Brief: What would you say was the biggest structural change to the Army following 9/11?
Lt. Gen. Guy Swan: Though the United States Army is always adjusting its structure to meet current and anticipated threats, one of the most significant changes since 9/11 was moving to a brigade-centric force structure. By that I mean combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan required more agile forces, something less than the Cold War-era divisions that dominated the European theater for decades.
These smaller 4,000-5,000 soldier units are self-contained with all necessary supporting logistics, artillery, communications, and medical care built in. That has given commanders tremendous flexibility over long periods of time in dealing with operations across the spectrum, from stability operations to high intensity combat operations in distant locations.
To be clear though, division level commands are still needed today and well into the future as command and control headquarters capable of orchestrating joint and combined military operations with the other military services and with allied and coalition partners.
TCB: What was the driving force behind that change, and how would you rate the effectiveness of the changes in terms of confronting the new threats to U.S. security?
GS: The nature of conflict in recent years, and I believe for the foreseeable future, requires the U.S. Army and the other military branches to be able to present enemies with a wide array of capabilities that collectively overwhelm their ability to respond. To do that, Army commanders and units must be able to dominate the battlefield across the board, from cyber and social media to space, and from maneuver to devastating kinetic fires.
All of this requires skilled Army leaders who can choreograph conventional forces, special operations forces, the power of the other military services, other U.S. Government agencies, and National Guard Reserve and coalition forces in a unified manner. It’s a tall order, but we’ve built some very talented leaders in the Army and the broader U.S. military who have done a pretty good job across that complex spectrum.
TCB: In pivoting towards the challenges of the post-9/11 world, is there anything the Army has lost as a result?
GS: The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere required the Army and the other military services to focus on fighting non-standard adversaries. That is, we’ve had to adapt to defeating terrorist organizations and insurgent groups threatening host nations instead of traditional state-sponsored armies and navies. To do that within its limited resources, the Army had to reduce its emphasis on the kind of warfighting skills and capabilities needed to confront near-peer military forces.
The resurgence of an aggressive and confrontational Russia as well as the continuing challenges posed by North Korea, Iran, and even China are, once again, requiring the Army to re-hone those high end warfighting skills, like maneuvering tank and mechanized forces, increasing emphasis on long-range artillery fires, employment of attack helicopters against a large enemy force, and more. But the Army is not going back to old ways to fight old wars. It has taken its experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere and combined them with its conventional high intensity capabilities to create a much more capable force than could have ever been imagined before 9/11.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in the near term is budget certainty. Arbitrary budget caps coupled with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required the Army to put on hold its modernization and technology advancement plans. The Army, as well as the other services, need congressional support to develop the kinds of technological capabilities needed for an uncertain future.
TCB: What has the last 15 years of war done to change the identity of Army?
GS: The Army’s experience over the post-9/11 period has been striking. First of all, America’s Army is now battle tested, tough, and much more aware of the world it operates in. Lessons learned – often the hard way – have, in my view, prepared the Army for the complex security challenges we will face in the years to come. For example, commanders and soldiers are far more conscious of their operating environment. They are more in tune than ever before with the culture, language, religion, geography, and even the history of the places they serve in. Additionally, 15-plus years of war have drawn the various components of the Army together. The Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve are now operating more seamlessly than ever before.
The integration of conventional general purpose forces and special operations forces has become routine and has actually amplified the capabilities of both. This is something that the Army is working hard to maintain. And most importantly, America’s soldiers have performed brilliantly. We have the most professional Army in our nation’s history. We have asked a lot of the All-Volunteer Force and the young men and women who serve. The same is true for their families, veterans, and retirees. The nation must ensure they get the compensation, benefits, education, training, and healthcare to carry on. They make it all happen.
