Last
week the U.S. Army and five other organizations sponsored a conference
concerning how to cope with the new security environment. The
Eisenhower Conference was an ecumenical affair, as reflected in the
fact that the Office of Net Assessment, Conference Board, Woodrow
Wilson Center, Drucker Foundation and Lexington Institute were all
co-sponsors. David Gergen analyzed the lessons of Dwight Eisenhower's
presidency; Nobel prize-winner David North discussed the impact of
nonrational belief structures on collective violence; Anne Krueger of
the International Monetary Fund explained the dynamics of economic
growth; Charles Krauthammer and John Eikenberry of Georgetown
University explored the limits of multilateralism; Joint Chiefs
Chairman Gen. Richard Myers reflected on emerging challenges.
If the Army's goal was to assemble the broadest array of
interesting insights on global security requirements, it certainly
succeeded. From my perspective, though, the most striking comments were
offered by Dr. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution concerning
military transformation. In addition to his doctorate in public
affairs, O'Hanlon holds degrees in physics and mechanical engineering
from Princeton. He has spent some time assessing the "revolution in
military affairs," and thinks the concept may have been oversold. As
one of the very few public commentators on transformation with solid
science credentials, his views are worth considering.
O'Hanlon agrees that progress in computers and micro-electronics is
advancing so fast that it really is revolutionary. Intel founder Gordon
Moore predicted in 1965 that the computing power of microprocessors
would double every two years, and "Moore's Law" (as it came to be
called) seems to be holding up quite well. O'Hanlon sees similar leaps
occurring in the biotechnology, particularly in genetics research. But
he doesn't think the revolution extends to other technology areas such
as aerospace vehicles or warships. There he sees only evolutionary
progress.
There's a lot of evidence to support his thesis. People have been
talking about putting directed-energy weapons in space for decades, but
the technology is still many years from fruition. Access to space
remains a dangerous and expensive proposition. The speed of warships
isn't much greater than what was seen in World War Two. And while
information technologies have made the F/A-22 fighter a truly
transformational system, the basic concepts of air warfare haven't
changed much in half a century.
O'Hanlon says the incremental advances outside chips and biotech
mean there is really an "evolution" in military affairs under way, not
a revolution. Proponents of the revolutionary perspective such as Adm.
Arthur Cebrowski say breakthroughs in infotech are enough to drive
transformation. O'Hanlon is too polite to say it, but the latter view
makes the Office of the Secretary of Defense sound like the last refuge
of dot.com mania -- not ahead of the curve, but behind it. If there is
a true disjuncture coming in human relations, it is probably in the
embryonic (no pun intended) world of genetics research, not in
computers and telecoms. But the Bush Administration's ties to pro-life
groups may make that revolution too tough for his Pentagon team to
embrace.
