{"id":21392,"date":"2015-07-06T12:30:25","date_gmt":"2015-07-06T02:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=21392"},"modified":"2015-07-06T13:29:58","modified_gmt":"2015-07-06T03:29:58","slug":"is-the-environment-dangerous-or-is-that-the-enemy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/is-the-environment-dangerous-or-is-that-the-enemy\/","title":{"rendered":"Is the environment dangerous? Or is that the enemy?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n At ASPI\u2019s Army Future Force Structure Conference<\/a>\u00a0the week before last, one theme was particularly recurrent: the \u2018operating environment\u2019 that the army is now working in is increasingly dangerous. In particular, we frequently heard that lethal weapons such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and RPGs necessitated much higher levels of protection in the next generation of vehicles being procured under project LAND 400. After years of hard and dangerous work in Afghanistan and Iraq, this sounds hard to argue with. Especially if you think of those threats as part of the environment.<\/p>\n Therein lies the problem. If large IEDs and anti-armour RPGs are a permanent immutable character of the landscape like sand, hills, wind or rain, then they\u2019re fundamentally inescapable, predictable and enduring, and we must withstand them. But in reality, they\u2019re actually the tactics and technology of a determined enemy who we should be trying to defeat. If IEDs are part of the environment, rather than weapons of the enemy, you\u2019re always going to favour protection over mobility and firepower. We’re basically saying it’s rainy outside, bring a raincoat. But we can’t fight the rain, or persuade it to desist, or cut of its supply, or remove it from its support base, or anything else we might hope to do to defeat insurgents or terrorists like the Taliban, IS or al Qaeda.<\/p>\n It\u2019s sounds almost as though we\u2019ve given up on winning, and hence resorted to tactics (and technology) of survival in a difficult environment, rather than victory over an enemy. Sadly, no amount of protection will ever be enough to ensure that we \u2018survive the first hit\u2019, as the objective was described last week. While rain and hail can be surprisingly heavy, we still have a comfortable upper-bound. Not so for IEDs, where a bigger bomb<\/a> will always be possible\u2014and ultimately lethal. Unlike sailing adventures or mountaineering, a survival narrative in warfare shouldn\u2019t be enough on its own. It has to be part of a narrative that includes a possible victory. Allowing the enemy to blend into the environment conceptually as well as physically doesn\u2019t help with that at all.<\/p>\n