Military Struggles to Grasp Definition of Infrastructure Due to Ambiguity in Doctrine
In the realm of military operations, the understanding of infrastructure can often vary, leading to confusion. This is particularly evident in the US military, which has been tasked with supporting and even spearheading government and civil construction projects over the past two decades, yet lacks a doctrinal terminology to support such missions effectively.
Historically, the military's connection to the term infrastructure has been based on permanent installations that form a basis for military operations. However, in the context of counterinsurgency, infrastructure extends far beyond physical structures and encompasses people and the services they provide.
Anthropologist Ashley Carse and Brian Larkin, an anthropology professor at Columbia University, have suggested that we should shift our focus from what infrastructure is to how it impacts communities. Larkin introduces a broad definition: "Infrastructures are built networks that facilitate the flow of goods, people, or ideas and allow for their exchange over space."
A definition like Larkin's, or one akin to the concepts found in FM 3-24, focusing on infrastructure as a network of connections rather than a series of physical structures, might better equip the military to accomplish its complex missions. This new perspective could even enable us to understand people as infrastructure.
The operational variable of "infrastructure" in irregular warfare doctrine is described as creating the ability for new interactions and relationships within society that can change how a person views the world and change that person's values. The military employs an additional set of variables called civil considerations to analyze operational variables, which include areas, structures, capabilities, organizations, people, and events (ASCOPE).
The current definition of infrastructure in U.S. military doctrine is not explicitly provided in the available search results. The DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms uses the term infrastructure thirty-four times but never defines it. JP 4-01.8, a military publication, defines infrastructure as "all building and permanent installations necessary for the support, redeployment, and military forces operations." This definition does not allow for the people, the equipment, or the information to be a part of the infrastructure itself.
The lack of a doctrinal definition for infrastructure in military publications limits the military's communication, thinking, and effectiveness in operations focused on building the legitimacy of a government or winning the support of the population. New definitions of infrastructure could have broad-sweeping implications for Department of State missions overseas and development projects within the United States itself. Instead of limiting funding to physical buildings, it could be spent on increasing worker salaries, paying for professional education, or supporting various forms of transportation.
However, critics argue that efforts to train workers, provide in-home medical care for the disabled, and support energy-efficient transportation do not count as infrastructure development. Despite this, the largest infrastructure development project in history is being advocated by President Joe Biden.
In conclusion, redefining infrastructure to encompass people, equipment, information, and services could revolutionize the way the US military approaches its missions, particularly in irregular warfare. This shift in perspective could lead to more effective operations, better support for local communities, and a more comprehensive understanding of the role of infrastructure in modern warfare.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
