Editor’s note: This is the second article in a series that dives into the multiple ideas presented in the US Army’s Multi-Domain Battle Concept. You can also read the first article, “The Road to Multi-Domain Battle: An Origin Story.” Multi-Domain Battle Concept Version 1.0 is an important work that requires close reading and reflection. When you apply context to the core components of the concept, it becomes clear that the concept addresses the complexities of the future operating environment with considerable depth. As the second article in this series, it is important to reinforce that my focus is...Read More
Search Results for: multi domain
In this episode of the MWI Podcast, we talk to Gen. David Perkins, the commander of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command. In that capacity, among his many areas of responsibility, is playing an important leadership role in the development of the Multi-Domain Battle concept. According to this framework, victory in future military conflicts will require an ability to bring decisive power to bear across multiple domains—air, land, and sea, but also space and cyberspace. But what will this actually look like, in practice? What will it mean for the way we structure combat units? How will it change...Read More
Editor’s note: “Multi-Domain Battle” made its first appearance in Army doctrine with the release this month of the updated Field Manual 3-0: Operations and as a draft operational concept, documents that provide insight into how the army sees itself fighting tonight, tomorrow, and in the future. This is the first in a series of articles examining the concept and how it will change the way the US military fights. These days you can’t get through the #NatSec blogosphere without running into Multi-Domain Battle. And just about everyone has a perspective. Some say it is old wine in a...Read More
Multi-Domain Battle (MDB) has become the flavor of the month. Pushed predominantly by the US Army and Marine Corps, it is the current iteration of various recent attempts to meld the services, the military missions, and the strategic environment into a coherent, all-encompassing concept. Jointness is no longer enough. As repeatedly seen since the end of World War II, however, the United States has a consistent record of losing wars, both on the battlefield, and as policy contests. The US military services’ institutional cultures—what Carl Builder called their “masks of war”—deserve a significant amount of blame for these failures,...Read More
The strategic challenges posed by resurgent global powers have largely escaped the headlines of major news publications. Most citizens do not realize that Russia and China possess the technology capable of denying US forces the ability to operate uncontested in the western Pacific Ocean or eastern Europe. Given that preserving the current rules-based international order is a key security interest of the United States, this issue poses significant problems for the US military. Fortunately, members of the defense community are formulating ways to solve this new challenge. Planners and strategists within the institutional Army are underway developing the much-publicized...Read More
The articles and other content which appear on the Modern War Institute website are unofficial expressions of opinion. The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
The Modern War Institute does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Rather, the Modern War Institute provides a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Comments will be moderated before posting to ensure logical, professional, and courteous application to article content.