No announcement yet.

Article: Tomorrow's Combat Soldier

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Article: Tomorrow's Combat Soldier

    Article: Tomorrow's Combat Soldier by Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria II.

    I am posting a response to this article I received in email...after making sure it was OK. Some interesting comments about future warfare and information overload.

    "I read with great interest, Lt. Col. Echevarria's article about a possible future of infantry combat, and about the equipment advances in the pipeline. What Colonel Echevarria describes is fascinating and evokes visions of the "tip of our spear" entering combat with more information than imagined even five or ten years ago. My concerns of such advances are primarily two. First, will our infantrymen suffer from "information overload", much as can be the case in my former military specialty (intelligence)? Second, it is certainly possible that such equipment may result in our infantrymen depending too much on this electronic input, and forgetting that the best tools they have are their brain and their training. This is equitable to intelligence agencies over-dependence on technological gathering of intelligence, neglecting the most valuable and timely intelligence, human intelligence. (HUMINT) As I stated above, my military profession was intelligence analysis. It was (and is) the duty of a good analyst to gather information from a myriad of sources; to sort this information into the useful, the questionable, and the useless; and to perform a rational, succinct and coherent analysis that is easily understood by the field command and other users. Both of the above-noted problems can easily destroy the utility of any analysis and make the finished product useless to its users. The same overload and techological dependence are the bane of both the infantryman and the analyst. The primary difference is, of course, that if an analyst is wrong, he tries to do better next time. If an infantryman is wrong, he is likely dead. I do appreciate technological advances and their utility. I sound a note of caution only because it has occurred in the past that "advances" manage to be a step backward, rather than a true advance. Once again, I commend Colonel Echavarria for a wonderful and informative article. My comments are not meant to be a criticism, either of Colonel Echavarria or the equipment described. Rather they are a rational, system-oriented analysis of these pending advances."
    Our forefathers died to give us freedom, not free stuff.

    I write books about zombies as E.E. Isherwood. Check me out at

  • #2
    Does it matter?

    What more information do we need? In the first Gulf War we lost 130 men and killed countless Iraqi soldiers. In the second one we can't even track down a suspected terrorist without having to smash into a house and open fire. What we need is local intelligence through contacts, spies, and patrols. Pretty much all of future combat missions will be in the Middle East and all they have are some aging T-55's and AK-47's. In this area we have the only real air force, the -only- navy, and larger, better armed troops. As much as I hate to say it the age of tank battles and dog fights are over. We should take a lesson from the Brits and start developing better ways to track and kill...erm catch terrorists.
    O people, know you have committed great sins and the great ones among you have committed these sins. If you ask proof of my words then I shall tell you: I am the punishment of God. If you hadn't committed these sins I would not be here.


    • #3
      It has been shown in recent yrs that humint is truly the best type of intelligence to have. Even though we have all the electronic capabilities we can get our hands on, its still the best to have. No amount of electronic intel can surpase someone on the ground giving you a real time account of whats going on.
      Govenour Of Texas and all southern provinces. Kepper Of The Holy Woodchipper.


      Latest Topics