Military Review English Edition November-December 2015 | Page 53

CAVALRY

Forces Press Service story reports that Gen. Martin E.
Dempsey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
said in late 2013 that “the risk of state-on-state conflict
is diminished, [italics added] ... but because of the global
proliferation of technology, the ability of nonstate actors to wage conflict to injure or destroy has never been
greater [italics added].”4
David Kilcullen’s Out of the Mountains: The Coming
of Age of the Urban Guerrilla describes how a combination of globalization, urbanization, weapons proliferation, and failed states will contribute to conflicts being
fought within cities against a well-resourced, tech-savvy enemy who can rapidly scale to address our tactics,
techniques, and procedures with the aid of commercial
off-the-shelf materials and technology.5 According to
FM 2-91.4, Intelligence Support to Urban Operations,
such enemies “may view [urban conflict] as their best
chance to negate the technological and firepower
advantages of modernized opponents.”6 The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Langley
Research Center corroborates this stance, according to
a slide presentation by chief scientist Dennis Bushnell,
which states that “warfare will become increasingly
robotic and probably more affordable, [and] swarms of
sensors/shooters are a given.”7 One need only look at

Russia’s successes with hybrid warfare in Ukraine and
Georgia—pairing deceptive information operations
with special operations and paramilitary forces—or at
the similar successes of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria) in employing swarming against traditional forces
in Iraq and Syria, to see examples of threats to come.
Changing Role of the Cavalry
As the security environment has changed, so too has
the primary demand for the cavalry squadron changed
from destroying traditional enemy reconnaissance
assets en masse to providing effective reconnaissance,
surveillance, and targeting. This provides the senior
ground commander with a better opportunity to assess
cultural environments, threats, and opportunities; to
complement special operations forces; and to neutralize
the enemy. Improving the capabilities of our squadrons
to match this demand is not as simple as adding a new
weapon, sighting system, or vehicle; instead, it necessitates fundamental changes to cavalry squadron structure and employment.
Adapting Structure
Numerous cavalry professionals have written on
this subject, including Capts. Joshua Suthoff and
Michael Culler. In their excellent article “Ideas on
Cavalry,” they write, “If ca valry is to be maintained,
ideas to keep the branch relevant cannot be scoffed
off as dangerous or outside our capabilities.”8 I stand
atop their shoulders when saying that first, we must
adapt our structure, recognizing that the Army of
2025 and beyond will have multiple requirements
for cavalry squadrons.
The first requirement for decentralized light
reconnaissance forces is best typified by the Army’s
increasing use of special operators, combined with unmanned and strategic platforms, in wide area security,
special reconnaissance roles. The second requirement,
developed from past experience, calls for an expeditionary, combined-arms maneuver force likely to face
enemy armor upon initial thrusts into foreign countries. Recognizing that each of the current cavalry
squadron formations excels at certain distinctive
Soldiers from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, maneuver M1 Abrams tanks 15 February 2014 at the National Training
Center, Fort Irwin, California, during decisive action rotation 14-04.
(U.S. Army photo by Spc. Randis Monroe, Operations Group, National Training Center PAO)

MILITARY REVIEW  November-December 2015

47