TRANSFORMING HOW WE FIGHT
A Conceptual Approach
Christopher D. Kolenda
Transformation has been defined correctly as a process rather than an end state.
Still, nagging questions linger. What is the purpose of transformation? Toward
what goal is military transforming headed? What do we want the future military to
do? What should it look like? How should it fight? The transformation, to be
meaningful, must lead coherently from a present state toward an envisioned
future condition. Transformation, therefore, is most precisely a strategy designed
purposefully to achieve a cogent vision of the future. Absent this articulation of
purpose, transformation risks moving in the wrong direction—or in no direction at
all. The key, to paraphrase Secretary of Defense Donald R. Rumsfeld, is to have
the right ladder standing against the right wall.
The struggle from which such a purpose may be derived has been a powerful
subtext of the transformation debate and has indeed informed arguments over
war planning against Iraq. In the meantime, the services have pursued a
disaggregated transformation—each trying to improve what it does best.
Problems naturally arise with this approach, particularly in areas such as joint
interoperability and lift, by air and sea—areas that are crucial for effectiveness at
the joint level but that might get low priority from an individual service
perspective. Still, it is important not to rush; making the intellectual effort to get
the vision right is crucial. Heading, however purposefully, in a self-defeating
direction would be disastrous.
Up to this point, unfortunately, the debate about transformation and the future of
the military has remained largely rooted in technology. We need to update our
understanding of the nature of war and use it as a touchstone. The future will
belong not necessarily to the most technologically advanced combatant but the
