The landscape of warfare is undergoing a transformative shift towards what can be termed "Strategic Decentralization," where strategic and operational-level capabilities are increasingly being translated to the tactical level. This shift is driven by the rapid militarization of commercial technology, enabling smaller units and individual soldiers to wield capabilities once reserved for higher echelons. To understand this evolution, we must examine historical and contemporary conflicts, from World War I to the current Ukrainian conflict, and the actions of insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In World War I, the primary mode of warfare was characterized by large-scale trench battles and the strategic use of artillery barrages. Airplanes, a new invention at the time, were strategic assets used for reconnaissance and strategic bombing. As World War II progressed, aircraft became more integrated into combined arms operations, serving both strategic and operational roles. They provided close air support (CAS) directed by ground forces, significantly enhancing the mobility and effectiveness of ground operations. The Vietnam War further illustrated this transition. The U.S. military's use of helicopters transformed operational capabilities, allowing for rapid troop movements and close air support in challenging terrain. These helicopters, while still managed at the operational level, were used tactically to insert and extract small units, demonstrating the growing trend towards more agile and flexible combat operations.
The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq showcased the power of insurgent groups operating in small units with decentralized command structures. These groups often leveraged commercially available technology to gain tactical advantages. One of the most striking examples is the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). These low-cost alternatives to the expensive, strictly controlled explosives used by modern militaries became ubiquitous due to their ease of manufacture and accessibility. While military explosives required coordination and approvals, rendering them less available to front-line soldiers, insurgents could deploy IEDs with relative autonomy, creating significant strategic disruptions with minimal resources.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban effectively used IEDs to disrupt NATO supply lines and patrols. These devices, often made from common household items and repurposed military ordnance, allowed insurgents to inflict casualties and damage far out of proportion to their cost. The strategic impact of IEDs was significant, forcing NATO forces to adopt new counter-IED measures, reallocate resources, and change operational tactics. Without the use of IEDs, the Taliban would have had far less capability to challenge NATO forces, potentially leading to quicker and more decisive NATO victories in key engagements.
Similarly, in Iraq, insurgents used IEDs to great effect during the early years of the occupation. The Battle of Fallujah in 2004 serves as a prominent example. Insurgents employed IEDs and other guerrilla tactics to resist U.S. forces, causing significant casualties and prolonging the battle. The decentralized nature of these tactics, combined with the use of commercial communications technology, allowed insurgent leaders to coordinate attacks and adapt rapidly to U.S. operations. Without Strategic Decentralization, the insurgents would have been far less effective, and the battle could have resulted in a quicker U.S. victory with fewer casualties.
The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan offers another example of the impact of Strategic Decentralization. Azerbaijani forces utilized drones and loitering munitions extensively, providing real-time intelligence and conducting precision strikes on Armenian positions. This decentralized use of drone technology allowed Azerbaijani units to maintain constant pressure on Armenian forces, ultimately leading to a decisive victory. Without the use of drones, Azerbaijani forces would have faced a much tougher and prolonged conflict, potentially resulting in a stalemate or even a different outcome.
In Syria, Kurdish forces of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) leveraged commercial drones and advanced communication tools to coordinate their defense and offensives against ISIS. These tools allowed small units to conduct surveillance, target enemy positions accurately, and communicate effectively despite the challenging terrain and the decentralized nature of their operations. This use of Strategic Decentralization was crucial in several key battles, including the defense of Kobani and the liberation of Raqqa. Without these technologies, Kurdish forces would have struggled to coordinate their efforts and achieve their objectives against a well-entrenched enemy.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine provides a compelling case study of Strategic Decentralization. Ukrainian forces have effectively utilized commercial and personal-use drones for reconnaissance, targeting, and even direct strikes. These drones, once the purview of state actors with significant resources, are now operated by individual soldiers and small units. This capability allows for real-time intelligence and precision strikes, enhancing the effectiveness of decentralized operations.
A notable example is the Battle of Kyiv in 2022. Ukrainian forces used commercial drones to gather intelligence on Russian troop movements and to direct artillery fire with pinpoint accuracy. This real-time information allowed Ukrainian units to conduct highly effective ambushes and counterattacks, significantly slowing the Russian advance. The drones provided a level of situational awareness that would have been impossible to achieve with traditional reconnaissance methods. Without these drones, Ukrainian forces would have been operating with far less information, likely resulting in a more rapid and devastating Russian advance into the city.
Another significant example is the use of drones by Ukrainian forces during the Battle of Bakhmut. Ukrainian units employed drones to conduct reconnaissance and direct artillery strikes, enabling them to hold off superior Russian forces for an extended period. The ability to leverage drone technology at the tactical level allowed Ukrainian soldiers to adapt quickly to changing battlefield conditions and exploit enemy weaknesses. Had Ukrainian forces not employed drones, the outcome of the battle could have been drastically different, with Russian forces achieving a more decisive and earlier victory.
As we look to the future, it is clear that the trend of Strategic Decentralization will continue to shape warfare. Militaries that embrace this shift will gain significant advantages over those that maintain centralized control over strategic and operational assets. The key to success in future conflicts will be the ability to translate high-level capabilities to the tactical level, empowering small units and individual soldiers to act with agility and precision.
Several technologies are likely to play crucial roles in this transformation:
The future of warfare lies in Strategic Decentralization, where the militarization of commercial technology translates strategic and operational-level capabilities to the tactical level. This shift enhances the agility, flexibility, and combat effectiveness of small units practicing decentralized command. Militaries that rapidly adapt to this changing landscape will gain a distinct advantage in future conflicts, demonstrating the critical importance of embracing innovation and decentralization in modern warfare. As we move forward, the lessons learned from historical and contemporary conflicts will guide the development of military strategies that prioritize Strategic Decentralization, ensuring preparedness for the challenges of tomorrow's battlefields. By empowering small units with high-level capabilities, future military operations will be more dynamic, responsive, and effective, ultimately shaping the outcome of conflicts in favour of those who can best adapt to this new paradigm.
