2004Journal of Strategic StudiesRequires access

Change and Transformation in Military Affairs

Eliot A. Cohen

Open publisher page 65 citations

Abstract

For nearly twenty years military analysts have talked of a "military technical revolution," a "revolution in military affairs," and most recently "military transformation." However, discussions of a prospective military revolution have suffered from four general problems: (1) abstraction of RMA theorizing from the world of geopolitics; (2) a focus on technology at the expense of organization, doctrine, and manpower; (3) a tendency to depict transformation as something that happens top-down, rather than bottom-up; and (4) a failure to look at the response to RMA-type capabilities on the part of weaker opponents. Ironically, however, it is only by looking at these four aspects of military affairs in our time that we can truly estimate the possibilities of military transformation. Moreover, an examination of how military forces, the processes of battle, and the outcomes of war have changed in recent years gives us reason to think that a major change in the character of warfare itself has occurred.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

For nearly twenty years military analysts have talked of a "military technical revolution," a "revolution in military affairs," and most recently "military transformation." However, discussions of a prospective military revolution have suffered from four general problems: (1) abstraction of RMA theorizing from the world of geopolitics; (2) a focus on technology at the expense of organization, doctrine, and manpower; (3) a tendency to depict transformation as something that happens top-down, rather than bottom-up; and (4) a failure to look at the response to RMA-type capabilities on the part of weaker opponents. Ironically, however, it is only by looking at these four aspects of military affairs in our time that we can truly estimate the possibilities of military transformation. Moreover, an examination of how military forces, the processes of battle, and the outcomes of war have changed in recent years gives us reason to think that a major change in the character of warfare itself has occurred.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 65 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

For nearly twenty years military analysts have talked of a "military technical revolution," a "revolution in military affairs," and most recently "military transformation." However, discussions of a prospective military revolution have suffered from four general problems: (1) abstraction of RMA theorizing from the world of geopolitics; (2) a focus on technology at the expense of organization, doctrine, and manpower; (3) a tendency to depict transformation as something that happens top-down, rather than bottom-up; and (4) a failure to look at the response to RMA-type capabilities on the part of weaker opponents. Ironically, however, it is only by looking at these four aspects of military affairs in our time that we can truly estimate the possibilities of military transformation. Moreover, an examination of how military forces, the processes of battle, and the outcomes of war have changed in recent years gives us reason to think that a major change in the character of warfare itself has occurred.

Key concepts: Revolution in Military Affairs, Military doctrine, Geopolitics, Battle, Political science, Military science, Civil–military relations, Military sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Change and Transformation in Military Affairs — Research Paper | ScholarLens