Arkansas’ Republican Sen. Tom Cotton emphasized this week that understanding and evaluating recent global conflicts could effectively inform the United States’ future warfare trajectory. In this dialogue, Cotton underscored the key learnings from the modus operandi of countries such as Israel, who have in the past year undergone a revolutionary transformation in their military strategies.
Cotton’s focus was particularly centered around the formulation and execution of warfare strategies that Israel has implemented recently, effectively changing the landscape of future warfare. Evidently, the Senator was keen to draw light on how these novel strategies could be adapted and implemented by the US to ensure its continued dominance on the battlefield.
Notably, Cotton praised the way Israel and Ukraine have swiftly made battlefield alterations. He attributed this ability to adapt quickly to their not having to navigate the dense bureaucratic structure synonymous with the U.S. Department of Defense. The focus was thus directed towards overcoming bureaucratic hindrances in order to encourage the innovation necessary for success.
The Senator was adamant in his assertion that the need for innovation was immediate. To persist in a winning streak against our adversaries, he stressed that the military must adopt changes in real time on the battlefield. However, he tempered this need for speed with a reminder that conventional military equipment remains an irreplaceable attribute to secure ultimate victory.
Building on this argument, Cotton highlighted the value of investing in smaller, expendable equipment with quick production turnarounds and budget-friendly costs. He opined that such a strategy has served Israel and Ukraine well and it is high time that the U.S. pay attention to this prudent form of military spending.
While emphasizing the importance of spending strategically on the military resources, Cotton expressed his concern that some of his congressional peers might hold a false notion of conquering in war. The seemingly growing belief that battles can be won merely with keyboard strokes or social media campaigns is misleading, he opined.
In an era where technology is increasingly taking center stage, the Senator felt compelled to remind his colleagues that the fundamentals of warfare remain unaltered. Irrespective of the technologies employed, victory in wars is primarily determined by the effective neutralization of an enemy’s military personnel and assets.
In delineating his view of effective warfare, he elaborated, ‘A victory could be achieved through high-tech means such as Tomahawk missiles or Abrams tanks, or as observed in the innovative approaches of Israel and Ukraine, through easily produced, low-cost drones or munitions.’
The evolution of war may involve a metamorphosis in the technology being used; the essence of war, however, is a constant, he conjectured. Reiterating his point, Cotton underlined that the principle mechanism through which wars are fought and won has largely remained the same throughout history.
In addition to his analysis of modern warfare tactics, Cotton also took the opportunity to applaud Israel’s recent military responses to Hezbollah. He indicated that their actions served as an excellent example of how advanced technology could disrupt enemy supply chains, testifying to the success achieved on the battlefield.
However, Cotton made it clear that the use of cutting-edge technology should not detract from the truth that final victory is clinched through direct action and engagement on the battlefield. The innovations we adopt must always serve as a means to this end, he added.
Through this discourse, Cotton essentially voiced a call to action for the adoption of innovative warfare strategies that meld seamlessly with traditional military principles. Drawing on the experiences of Israel and Ukraine, he pointed out the tangible benefits of a low-cost, high-production warfare approach.
The crucial role of swift action on the battlefield was emphasized, along with a strong resistance to bureaucratic challenges that impede the evolution of warfare. A balance between new-age technology and fundamental warfare strategies emerged as a central theme from his dialogue.
Cotton’s message indeed serves as a reminder that the compliments of technological innovation and the bedrock of traditional warfare strategies need not be mutually exclusive. Instead, they could very well operate together, making up the backbone of a formidable military and defense structure.
In the end, what echoes from Cotton’s discourse is a plea for the U.S. military forces to learn from its international counterparts’ successes. By taking lessons from the battlefield innovations in the world over, he implied that the US might continue to uphold its proud legacy of being a dominant global military power.
.@SenTomCotton to @MorganOrtagus on the future of warfare warns: “Technology– it has to change faster and there has to be more innovation! … Our Department of Defense doesn’t innovate fast.” pic.twitter.com/Ioeqe5bEIK
— Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) September 26, 2024