Recently, Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno gave a presentation to the Association of United States Army on “Force 2025 and Beyond.” If you want to know what the Army’s head honcho is planning for its future, check out this nifty PDF.

One thing that will definitely not change is the military’s fondness for acronyms. Reading Odierno’s presentation requires a high tolerance for initials as well as an instinctual knowledge about matters such as the difference between USAPRAC and USPACOM. After wandering through his dense forest of acronyms, I came away with the following impressions:

The Army doesn’t have a clue about the future. While it is true that he identifies possible threats, you don’t have to read between the lines too much to know that Odierno has no idea what kind of war the Army should prepare for. This is not a big surprise, and is something that this blog has discussed before (see here).

Odierno’s solution for this quandary?  Among other things, the Army needs “adaptability.”  I suggest you play a drinking game with a buddy. Download the PDF of Odierno’s presentation, and have your friend read it out loud. Every time he says “adapt” or “adaptability,” take a shot. You may want to start off with something light, because you’ll take 6 shots on the first page alone.

Doubling down on technology. Seeing a high-level bureaucrat reject common institutional wisdom is a bit like watching a magnificent sunrise. It has happened before and it will happen again. However, you should still pause and admire its beauty.

Odierno clearly feels like he is operating in a financial squeeze (in real terms, the Defense budget continues to rise). However, he is not following the usual institutional practice of cutting Research & Development in times of austerity. Odierno could have simply followed recent trends and simply off-loaded R&D responsibilities onto vendors, i.e. “I don’t know what we want, but I want you to build it.”

While the Army will use commercial suppliers, Odierno makes it clear that he is not abandoning R&D. In fact, technology and innovation is a big priority and he discusses it a great deal.

While I applaud Odierno’s not sacrificing R&D on the budget chopping block, I do wonder about the US military’s continued reliance on technology to give it an “edge” (or in Odierno-ese, “overmatch capabilities”), especially in counter-insurgency scenarios. Does it make sense to use million dollar missiles to destroy ancient pick-up trucks?

Most US military personnel in the Pacific region belong to the Army. Odierno makes a point of making this point. You know all those folks who say that the Pacific Tilt means cutting the Army’s budget, so that money can be diverted to the Air Force and Navy?  This is Odierno’s way of thumbing his nose at them.

80% of “rotorcraft” will be replaced.  Good time to be a helicopter manufacturer.

High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) will reduce the need for stockpiles.  Yeah! We’re finally going to get ray guns!  Or at least “ray cannons.”

“Alternative sources of water.”  What has the Army learned after fighting for 13 years in an arid environment?  The importance of water.  I wouldn’t be surprised that out of all the technologies the military is currently developing that water purifications and generation end-up being the most world changing.

Healthcare & medicine.  More than a few areas of technological development that Odierno describes involved healthcare of some kind. Considering its skyrocketing cost, not a big surprise.

The future of unmanned systems is so last year. Odierno mentions Autonomous Aerial Resupply as a “potential capability.”  This is the only time he mentions unmanned systems.

I have been optimistic about the role of unmanned systems in US forces (see here). However, their relative absence from a technology-heavy discussion by the Army’s Chief of Staff does raise a red flag. Vendors of unmanned systems have visions of military robots doing everything from flipping burgers to fighting fires. If they want the Army to share that vision, they have some work to do.

“Sustaining investments in the technical workforce is paramount…However, sequestration could undermine these efforts.” Some congressmen have been vigilant in protecting soldiers form budget cuts. Not so much the military’s civilian workforce, which has been hammered by reduced funds. Odierno wants folks to understand that the guys who carry guns and wear camouflage are not the only ones who need protecting. The guys who carry calculators and wear white shirts are also important.

Odierno covers a lot of ground in his brief discussion. The above list is far from complete and only represents my overall impression. His presentation is worth reading in its entirety.

What do you think? What struck you about Odierno’s presentation?

Send your thoughts to: editor@amrel.com