The Disputed Meaning of Infrastructure and the Military's Struggle to Comprehend Its Definition
In a significant shift, President Joe Biden is advocating for the largest infrastructure development project in history. However, the term 'infrastructure' has been a subject of debate, with critics arguing that efforts to train workers, provide in-home medical care, and support energy-efficient transportation do not fall under this category.
The US Armed Forces have traditionally defined infrastructure in the context of logistical and sustainment infrastructure that supports joint operations. This includes distributed fuel storage, sustainment capabilities, and logistics as the backbone of joint force power projection and operational concepts. However, the DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms uses the term infrastructure thirty-four times but never defines it, leading to a lack of clarity.
This historical connection to physical structures such as airfields, naval bases, and training establishments has left the military's understanding of infrastructure somewhat limited. Anthropologist Ashley Carse points out that the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of infrastructure is also limited and does not fully represent the US military's use of the term.
Brian Larkin, an anthropology professor at Columbia University, suggests a more nuanced definition of infrastructure. He defines it as 'built networks that facilitate the flow of goods, people, or ideas and allow for their exchange over space.' This definition does not include people, equipment, or information as part of the infrastructure itself, but Larkin argues that infrastructure should be viewed as a rapidly evolving system of various parts in a flexible network.
This new definition could enable the military to accomplish complex missions more effectively. For instance, irregular warfare doctrine considers infrastructure as facilities, personnel, and services needed for a community or society to function. Infrastructure, according to this doctrine, can change how a person views the world and change their values.
Current operational plans focused on infrastructural development are often dismissed due to a lack of doctrinal terminology. The military employs an additional set of variables called civil considerations to analyze operational variables, including infrastructure. These considerations are listed as areas, structures, capabilities, organizations, people, and events (ASCOPE).
However, this more nuanced understanding of infrastructure is not available in a joint publication or other doctrine covering general military operations. Lack of doctrinal language for infrastructure can lead to reputational and career damage for servicemembers. A new definition of infrastructure like Larkin's or one akin to the concepts found in FM 3-24 could bridge this gap.
The 2000 edition of JP 4-01.8 defines infrastructure as 'all building and permanent installations necessary for the support, redeployment, and military forces operations.' This definition, while useful, does not fully encompass the evolving nature of infrastructure in today's interconnected world.
New definitions might even enable us to understand people as infrastructure. This idea, while controversial, reflects the interconnectedness of modern society and the role of individuals in facilitating the flow of goods, people, and ideas.
In conclusion, the debate over the definition of infrastructure is an important one. A more nuanced understanding of infrastructure could help the military better prepare for and respond to complex missions, and could even change the way we view the world and our place in it.
