From our Just-When-You-Thought-It-Was-Safe-To-Get-Back-In-The-Water file:
An expert from the Rand Corp. suggests that more than a decade's worth of experience in Afghanistan and Iraq has honed the U.S. Army's ability to fight irregular adversaries. But the Army now faces a "crisis of relevance" for its future enemies, particularly "state-sponsored hybrid adversaries" similar to the Islamic State (ISIL), Hezbollah, Hamas and separatists in Ukraine.
The thoughts of Rand senior researcher David Johnson, a retired Army colonel, may get into the weeds for the average civilian. Critics may also find the implications of his belief in the inevitability of U.S. military engagement off-putting.
But they do offer an interesting challenge about Army engagement — the battles the U.S. has not fought but likely will fight in the future.
"Our potential adversaries know our capabilities — and our vulnerabilities — and they are adapting," Johnson warns. "In some critical areas, we are overmatched now."
As Johnson defines it, the state-sponsored hybrid is moderately trained and disciplined, with weapons that include small arms, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, short-range rockets and roadside bombs and land mines; but also anti-tank and other more sophisticated shoulder-fired missiles.
Such forces often adopt tactics designed to avoid Western advantages in firepower, such as concentrating in cities to hide among the population, as ISIL has done.
If you fight the force with air power, you risk civilian casualties, which the enemy can exploit for propaganda purposes. The remaining option is ground forces, and Western nations are often reluctant to commit to putting large numbers of troops on the ground, he observes.