This week, I had the opportunity to attend an Army human dimension workshop. We spent two days discussing what some groups are doing to improve human performance today; what the future of war might look like; and discussing, in breakout groups, the soldier of 2050, what s/he will look like, and what it will take to recruit that soldier.
Part of the discussion in my group included the following points: that a lot of the work will be done by robots (whether a true robot or some other use of automation), not soldiers, allowing us to reduce the number of soldiers needed – or, perhaps, simply changing how they are distributed; that the brain’s of children and young adults today look different than they did 20 years ago, due to changes in school curricula (reducing the amount of memorizing required, reducing the amount of time spent in physical activity) and lifestyle (no need to memorize, for instance, a phone number, if you have it saved in your phone); and that distance education and virtual reality are likely to play an increasing role in education at all levels, effecting interpersonal skills.
But the more I thought about these assumptions, the more they bothered me.
We are talking about soldiers who, for the most part, have not yet been born. The enlistee of 2050 will not be born for another 15 years; the Army Chief of Staff of 2050 may be a student in the Basic Officer Leadership Course today. There is a lot of time between now and then to effect change if we, as an Army and/or as a country, want things to change.
Rather than accepting these assumptions, it seems to me that we should, yes, consider trends in warfighting technology, but also in education and other relevant areas, and determine which trends we want to effect. And then take the next 35 years doing so.
For example: children today spend less time outside being physical today than they did 30 years ago. That trend is expected to continue. Besides basic physical fitness, exercise, especially outside, results in increased bone density, both from the activity and from being in the sun, absorbing vitamin D. The downward trend of exercise (and drinking milk, another major source of vitamin D), is already effecting recruiting, as demonstrated by increased obesity, bone breakages in boot camp, etc. By 2050, this problem is expected to be significantly worse, increasing the difficulty in recruiting healthy soldiers; this problem will cross the other services and also first responders of all types. What can be done to reverse that? For example, can the Army work through the Executive Branch directly to develop programs in the Department of Education to emphasize physical education in school? Does Congress need to be involved either directing the work, or funding it?
When we talk about recruiting in 2050, we are talking about individuals who are post-Generation Z.* Sociologists still don’t have a full grasp of Gen Z characteristics – in part because they are still teenagers and younger. Though we can make assumptions, based on past generations and future trends, as to what the future recruit will look like, don’t even have a name yet for the generation we’re discussing. So, rather than assume our hands tied by what might be, how can we, as the human dimension community, can help ensure we have the recruits we need? Ultimately, because the Army thinks about the future in a way most industry does not, we are in a position to help the country as a whole be healthier 30 years from now because we are thinking about these things.
The Army used to be a leader in technology. We’ve lost a lot of that edge. Because of the rate that companies can work in the private sector now, undeterred by layers of bureaucracy, we are unlikely to regain that leadership position. But the Army can take the reigns in working toward a healthier US population. Now, wouldn’t that be something.
* Generation Z refers approximately to individuals born in the 2000s-2020.
Generation Y/Millenials are generally those born between 1980-1999.
Generation X are those born post-Baby Boom, pre-Millenial: 1965-1979.
Baby Boomers are those born between 1946-1964.
This week, New America hosted a forum entitled “The Future of War”. The speakers included the Service Chiefs from the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, and the Air Force’s Vice Chief was on one of the panels. Add in panels representing academia, media, technology, and retired flag officers who aren’t afraid to speak their minds, and some short discussions about human enhancement and cyber (cyber rifle, anyone?), and it was an impressive, thought-provoking line up.
GEN Milley, in a conversation with Barbara Starr, talked a lot about acquisition and the (desperate, IMO,) need for acquisition reform. Many of his comments centered around the acquisition of a new pistol: a proven technology that is readily available at Cabelas. After many years, and hundred of pages (just in the requirements document – the rest of the documents would easily get the page count into the thousands, I’m sure), the top contenders are now undergoing a two-year, $16M test. To say the approach is slow would be an understatement, and GEN Milley does not even try to hide his frustration about that.
Presumably because the acquisition is so slow, and he knows what is in the pipeline, GEN Milley mentioned that he does not see any fundamental changes coming to the Army for the next 5-10 years. Beyond that, yes, but not in the next 5-10 years.
I have a number of concerns about this, as should anyone reading this. First, our primary adversaries (Russia and China) have not spent the past 15 years at war; while we have been depleting ours, they have spent that time beefing up their own arsenals.
But more importantly, to me, is that it assumes that fundamental change can only come through materiel. What about the human dimension? It is significantly faster and less expensive (though also significantly harder, due to necessary culture changes) to strengthen the human capital of the Army – the soldiers – both physically and mentally than it is to buy a new piece of gear.
Simply focusing on the Performance Triad in a meaningful way – making sure all soldiers get sufficient amounts and quality of sleep; good, healthy, nutritious food; and daily exercise – will increase readiness, reduce injuries, and increase performance. Eight solid hours of sleep at night. Eating right. Exercising daily – preferably in the afternoon, as that has been shown to increase the likelihood that soldiers will get the sleep they need in the morning. At no added cost to the Army. Going farther, there are techniques to improve training – physical and mental – thereby improving the capabilities of each soldier. Add in more physical monitoring – which many soldiers do on their own anyway – whether through a FitBit or any of the other commercial applications, and Army leadership can be proactive in maintaining the health and readiness of the force.
Near-term improvements – even fundamental changes – are possible, and will result in a stronger, more prepared Army. But they require changes to the Army’s culture.
On second thought, acquisition reform might be easier.
© 2016, Analysis First LLC