Endless amounts of ink have been spent on internal paradigm shifts within the armed forces, on how armies define their priorities and objectives, and on predicting how nations will clash in the decades to come.
Much of this debate is often characterised by hair-splitting and endless lucubration that serves mainly to cloak the argument in seriousness rather than to expand the dialogue or enhance the arguments.
Therefore, taking a few steps back to try to provide a more structured image of the years to come, we will take a look at the new technologies at the centre of the international debate in relation to the areas where they could be - or are already - deployed.
MIDDLE EAST
There are four regional powers in the region (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran), three superpowers (Russia, USA, China) and the most important technologies can also be counted on the fingers of one hand.
TURKEY AND SAUDI ARABIA
Turkey and Saudi Arabia face different but similar challenges.
The Turks have to build up a fleet capable of moving on the open sea and they have to be able to supply it in order to protect their interests and force their neighbours to confront both their foreign and domestic policies (this is unlikely to happen - if at all - for eight or nine years). Erdogan has shown himself capable of sustaining the country through a turbulent decade but he has certainly not spared himself the use of repressive instruments nor has he kept a low profile in the Mediterranean context.
The challenges for the country's domestic policy range from the risk of galloping inflation - barely contained for now using means similar to those in Lebanon - to having to deal with the Kurdish question from a perspective that does not irritate two of the three superpowers (Russia and the US).
The Saudis have similar problems in domestic policy but different ones in foreign policy. Iran is quite happy to facilitate the anti-Saudi Yemenite groups in exchange for increased control over the Strait of Hormuz and the possibility of being able to place one foot on the neck of the adversary country. However, the Americans have already widely signalled and given their support and the Biden administration has been forced to maintain close contacts with Riyadh for now. Then there is Saudi Arabia's attempt to distance itself from Wahhabism, which has long been perceived as the religious doctrine that has most facilitated the phenomena of decentralised Sunni terrorism of today (in addition to the various wars that have taken place throughout the region).
In foreign policy, however, there is an attempt to distance itself as much as possible from Iranian tactics, perceived within the international community as devastating for the stability of the Middle East and North Africa, while Riyadh is trying to balance the role of the country (assisted by Egypt) as the centre of the Sunni world with the approach to Israel and the prodding of Turkey eager to replace both Cairo and Riyadh in their geostrategic position (the news of an opening to Israel by Turkey is also indicative of this).
IRAN AND ISRAEL
Israel and Iran are diametrically opposed to each other but are central to a better understanding of the region.
Iran is a multifaceted and extremely complex country, but it is dominated by a regime somewhere between theocratic and totalitarian. It enjoys a very young population that seemed to have found its element in the first half of the last decade only to see its prospects destroyed by a series of strategic posturing by the ruling class. The opening that came about thanks to the JCPOA (the nuclear deal) was supposed to act as a driving weight to bring old Persia closer to the European sphere. Needless to say, the attempt has bitterly failed due to the country's failure to change its stance coupled with the continuation of enrichment operations and probably the acceleration of research into nuclear vectors thanks to the sharing of information by North Korea and China. The obvious consequences are the imposition of devastating sanctions and forms of embargo on Iranian oil with a view to blocking Tehran's possible income with the aim of denying it the possibility of extending destabilising activities in the region by supporting Hezbollah and other groups with war material, men and HUMINT (intelligence and recruitment) operations.
Finally, Israel has a particular conformation with a society often defined as "Spartan" -mainly as a result of compulsory military service- and is still searching for a balance that will allow it to fit into regional politics without too much fuss. The openness towards sections of the population of Arab and Palestinian origin is the very latest example of a country moving towards forms of integration of two worlds in what appeared to be a war for survival until a few years ago.
Finally, Israel has a particular conformation with a society often described as "Spartan" - mainly as a result of compulsory military service - and is still searching for a balance that will allow it to fit into regional politics without too much fuss. The openness towards the segments of the population of Arab and Palestinian origin is the latest example of a country moving towards forms of integration of two worlds in what appeared to be a war for survival until a few years ago.
Beyond the internal fractures, however, the country remains perpetually at war with its neighbours, with the distinction that the forms of conflict are profoundly different from the traditional ones and define the active arsenals of a good slice of the Near East. A perfect example of this are the missile systems used by the Iranians which, after the war with Iraq, are directed mainly towards Israel with the objective of using them for skirmishes in times of 'peace' and to bring to the battlefield an absolute mountain of flying bombs in the event of open war. This strategy aims to be versatile and incapacitating at the same time so as to be able to shoot down both American and Tel Avivian targets and allows Tehran to move its missile-launching stations into Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanese territory as well as African and Yemeni territories. In response, the Israelis have a range of countermeasure, infiltration, and hacking technologies that ensure they can strike hard at the former Persia.
However, nowadays almost any state can deploy Shock and Awe strategies - also known as 'rapid dominance'. Its effectiveness in multiple contexts is now far from obvious - using missile systems, even rudimentary ones, but another question is finding A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) systems that are capable of even limiting damage.
In many ways this dilemma will dominate the war debate for probably the next two decades as underground skirmishes continue to erupt to prevent either country from gaining a dominant position.
SEIZE THE JUNGLE
Sayings such as "Own the Jungle" or "command must be decentralised so that young leaders are confronted with situations that require them to act without delay and take responsibility for the consequences" are typical of General Sir Walter Walker.
He was an interesting figure in the British army famous for being a fairly 'outspoken' anti-communist off the battlefield and a fearsome commander in action. The particularity of his work was not, however, in a couple of blustering statements and accusations of pro-communist beliefs levelled at some former prime ministers, but rather in having completely revamped the counter-espionage, anti-terrorism and guerrilla tactics of the British army first and then inspired the Americans themselves post-Vietnam.
We will explore this historical figure in more detail in later parts along with the influence he is still having today.
For now we leave you with this interesting video on contemporary Royal Marines Commandos.