The process of force management model involves executing activities that entail developing capabilities requirements, force integration, and documentation. The Force management model helps to determine who engages in war, how the deployment burden would be distributed to the various chains of commands in operation, and determines how effectively the organization and individuals are prepared to accomplish the tasks ahead. After the Vietnam war, the United States army changed in various ways to enhance its potential military power. The Vietnam experience demoralized the country’s military and made the nation to be divided; thus, raising the need and urgency of using technology in military operations that led to the Desert Storm operation where the military trained to improve their potential power that would protect the nation and its allies in future conflicts. Years later, the Desert Storm operation had a powerful influence on the military and air. However, it is important to identify the historical capability gap evident from the changes in the Vietnam war to Desert Storm and discuss how the force management model can be applied to these historical capability gaps.
Capability Gap Identified in the Readings
A capability gap is the inability to provide competency or accomplish the desired mission in operation. The historical capability gaps identified in the readings are the U.S. military was not able to achieve or accomplish its mission during the specified timeframe of special operations in Vietnam (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). After the assessment of the future of the military power to accomplish its mission in a chosen scenario, the relevant authorities came up with a doctrine to guide or improve the military power efficiency. However, the readings do not offer the right assessment of the threats and risks the country’s military faces in the specified time frame and in the future.
Application of the Force Management Model to the Capability Gap
To fill the historical capability gaps, the force management model has to be applied effectively, which would see capability and activities within the military are developed to strengthen the approach of the military organization on various issues. The military authorities have to change their approach and structure to operate (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). The organization should focus on improving soldiers’ empowerment enhancing team performance. The inefficiency of the military power can be improved by applying the army force management model where plans can be executed to improve the military capability and force integration.
Due to the fact that the military combat vehicle aircraft are aging, it is important to provide advanced protection that would increase the lethal nature of the military power. Because there is a need to have a more capable force that has less transport and sustainment needs. The organization has to level up and introduce new combat vehicles and aircraft that are in line with technological advancements (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). Also, the force management model application would focus on developing and increasing the capability of the military force, and adopting robotic and technological managed systems would significantly help to increase the military force and accomplish its mission in a specified duration.
What Created the Capability Gap?
Various reasons cause the capability gaps, but from the readings concerning the changes that the U.S. Army underwent after the Vietnam war to allow the success of Desert Storm can be argued that it was caused by either the strategic or operational requirements of the organization. The approach to the Vietnam war did not give the military the rightful lethal force that led to the fall of the economy and division of nature during the time. Under the right strategy, a nation is likely to be less affected when going to war and maintain national unity (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). The operational requirements and equipment were other causes for the capability gap since the combat vehicles and aircraft were not to date, and the enemy knew what to expect. The probability of the military failing to accomplish its mission was high. Thus, there was a need for the right institutions to come together and structure what to be done to increase the capability of the military.
Why are the Chosen Corrections Correct?
In the readings, The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) came up with solutions to resolve the capability gaps of the military of the nation. Among the solutions, the JCIDS offers to mitigate the capability gaps are either materiel or non-material solutions (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). The non-material solutions involve the use of alternative doctrine approaches, policy, and organizational changes or even changes at personal levels. In occasions where costs are a priority, non-material is highly encouraged by the JCIDS body. But the materiel solutions are considered to partially or wholly mitigate the unacceptable risks if they persist.
In general, the JCIDS has categorized the approach into modifying the previous solutions, upgrading the previous capabilities, and introducing new approaches or solutions. From a critical and personal perspective and research, the solutions combined by JCIDS and DAS are correct because they provide in-depth guidelines to mitigate the capability gap (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). The guidelines ensure the mitigation approaches align to policies, provide sustainable development, consider the personal limitations and the possible technological risks. However, the JCIDS provides a vast option of ranges that provides solutions to army capability gaps.
How are the Effects of the Solutions Managed?
JCIDS manages the effects of the solutions by evaluating the risks or capability and then advancing future capability that are required in the military. When implemented, prioritizing the solution is focused on the risks that are speculated and the aim of the nation during the conflict (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). The army has gained many processes and received skills that have accelerated their field experiences which helps to manage the effects of the solutions in the long-term effect.
How is the Solution Codified and Integrated into Force?
Solutions to mitigate the capability gap to be officially codified and integrated into force, prioritization is followed by assessing the available capability in the military by describing the military problems, capability requirements, and the capability gaps (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). Materiel approaches are implemented where long-term effect of resolving the capability gap is a priority. The prioritized solutions are officially codified and integrated into force by assessing the operational risks based on the available capability gap assessing the possibilities of the non-material solutions that require fewer resources during implementation.
How Does the Force Management Model Application to the Capability Gap Relate Today?
Today, capability gaps are identified and done differently where technological advancements like apps and software have been put into use to enhance identifying the available risks and evaluating the right solution to the identified risks. What would have changed in the past is that the organization would have focused more on personnel approaches and solutions in the military, where military forces are trained and equipped to enhance or cover the capability gaps (Schubert & Kraus, 2019). The challenge or the “so what” of the difference in application of the force management model today and during that time, is that there was minimal invention in technological advancements and human resources. The globe, is fast changing and capability gaps are taking a new approach where the military forces are investing more on the technological approach.
Schubert, F., & Kraus, T. (2019). The whirlwind war. Center of Military History, United States Army.