By Albert Palazzo, Strategy Bridge: “To achieve the full potential of the information era, Multi-Domain Battle must become more than just a concept for fighting that is owned by the military. Combat divorced from greater purpose, from a political end and from strategy, generally results in defeat.”
By Conrad Crane, War on the Rocks: “The emerging doctrine of AirLand Battle would stress agility and initiative as key operational concepts, but also included synchronization, the requirement to carefully coordinate all activities on the battlefield and achieve “unity of effort throughout the force.””
By John Bolton, Small Wars Journal: “Mission Command will fail if not fully embraced and understood. Education can only partly address this problem as the systems used by Soldiers implicitly affects their actions.”
By Daniel Goure, The Natoinal Interest: “The U.S. military has no sooner unveiled its shiny new operating concept for future joint warfare, called Multi-Domain Battle (MDB), then the wheels seem to be falling off their new, all-purpose construct.”
By Albert Palazzo, Strategy Bridge: “The current military leadership in the U.S. knows that if the United States is to succeed in its future wars it must find the means to reclaim its previous battlefield dominance. Its potential adversaries have adapted and implemented countervailing capabilities to negate U.S. advantages, especially its ability to project and maneuver force globally.”
By Kelly McCoy, Modern War Institute: “These days you can’t get through the #NatSec blogosphere without running into Multi-Domain Battle. And just about everyone has a perspective.”
By Kyle Borne, Small Wars Journal: “The concept of Multi-Domain Battle (MDB) recognizes the fundamental shift in how potential adversaries of the United States engage in geostrategic means with which to achieve geopolitical goals via means below-armed-conflict.”