Epilogue: Reflections on the U.S.-European Military Technology "Gap"

There is a widely discussed challenge for the Western Alliance--working together in the future as military systems are modernized. It is not encouraging to think about the most successful military alliance in history becoming a collective security system with an increasing inability to mount combined military operations. This comes at a juncture when Western states recognize a need to work more closely with one another in an effort to enhance European security, including stability in the Mediterranean region. Persistent differences of opinion and of national approaches complicate an ability of Western states to work with one another, but a new specter of technological dissonance threatens their ability to effect operations. Further, although much discussed, there is surprisingly little analytical work on the problem and, even less so, with regard to practical solutions for closing the military technology in the West. In part, this is because of the relative newness of the problem. With the end of the Cold War, an Alliance postured to defend itself against a large continental military threat had to shift course. Indeed, in the early 1990s, many were debating the continued relevance of the Alliance. Now the Alliance has enlarged with the inclusion of three new states, thus enhancing its relevance to European security. The question remains, however, of how the Alliance will operate militarily in the future and how the global power in its midst, the United States, will operate with its allies in the years ahead. This question is particularly underscored as the Alliance reconsiders its strategic mission. Which military missions are central to the Alliance? And which tools and approaches are most salient to those missions? NATO is in the process of trying to answer those questions. Coming to terms with solutions for the military technology would seem to be central to the Alliance's future. But just what is the relationship of the gap to greater effectiveness of military coalitions in which Western Europe and the United States would participate? And how might we most effectively deal with this gap to enhance our ability to work together? The U.S. Military in a Time of Change The driver of change in the Western military system is clearly the United States military and its pursuit of an RMA. To its credit, the United States is not simply sitting on its legacy military systems but is seeking to recast these systems into a new military force capable of operating with new information and communication technologies. But there are many debates in the United States about a proper approach to the RMA. Should there be a modest incremental adaptation of legacy systems to use new information and communication technologies? Or should there be a much more radical leap forward, in which the old division into air, ground and sea forces is absorbed into an entirely new military system? Not only is there a broad conceptual debate within the United States about the proper direction of the RMA, but the services are paradoxically seeking to dominate the joint force of the future: * The Army is shifting to become a high-intensity ground maneuver force directing precision strikes delivered from sea and land. * The Navy is shifting from a primary emphasis on its blue-water role to attack from the sea against shore targets and support for operations ashore. * The Air Force is shifting its attention from classic air power to space dominance and trying to transform itself into the premier [C.sup.4]I force for the U.S. forces. As the United States debates its approach to the RMA and the services struggle to realign and to redefine themselves, the U.S. military has become absorbed with its strategic redesign. This is occurring precisely at a time when the political leadership of the United States has focused more and more on the requirements for coalition operations within real world military operations. …