The Exploration of Infrastructure's Definition: Lack of Clarity in Doctrine and Consequential Uncertainty Within Military Ranks
In the world of academia, an anthropology professor at Columbia University, Brian Larkin, is suggesting a broader definition of infrastructure that could have far-reaching implications for the military and beyond. Larkin posits that infrastructures are built networks that facilitate the flow of goods, people, or ideas and allow for their exchange over space.
This expanded definition, if adopted, could challenge the traditional understanding of infrastructure within the military. Currently, the term is primarily associated with critical civilian and military facilities essential for the swift and unimpeded movement of troops, materials, and equipment, often in a dual-use context. This includes transportation networks, harbours, barracks, and logistical facilities that are crucial for military mobility in the EU and NATO.
However, as Major Chris Liggett, a special operations civil affairs officer, points out, the US military has yet to incorporate useful doctrinal terminology to support government and civil construction projects. This lack of clarity can limit the military's effectiveness in operations focused on infrastructural development.
The DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms uses the term infrastructure thirty-four times but never defines it. This ambiguity can lead to confusion and potentially serious reputational and career damage for soldiers, according to Liggett.
In counterinsurgency doctrine, infrastructure is understood to extend far beyond physical structures and enter the realm of people and the services they provide. Larkin's definition, which includes medical care and professional training as part of the infrastructure network, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the term.
This new understanding of infrastructure as a network of connections could have broad-sweeping implications for Department of State missions overseas and development projects within the United States. It could potentially enable the funding of things like worker salaries, professional education, and various forms of transportation.
However, critics argue that efforts to train workers, provide in-home medical care, and support energy-efficient transportation do not count as infrastructure development. The President's recent advocacy for the largest infrastructure development project in history further highlights the need for a clear, doctrinal definition.
The military's historical connection to the word infrastructure is based on physical structures like airfields, naval bases, and training establishments. However, in the modern context, a more holistic definition could better equip the military to accomplish its complex missions.
Anthropologist Ashley Carse also points out that the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of infrastructure is limited and does not fully represent the US military's use of the term. The lack of a doctrinal definition for infrastructure in joint military doctrine further complicates matters.
It is important to note that the views expressed in this article do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense. As the military continues to adapt to the complexities of modern warfare, the debate over the definition of infrastructure is likely to continue.
Read also:
- Trump's impact on Americans to be explored in new podcas to be hosted by Alex Wagner, in partnership with Crooked Media
- Trials in Quebec mirroring the strains, aspirations, and divisions of the present era
- Mourning a Mother's Death: Strategies for Daughters to Find Comfort
- Cultivating Adaptable Companies: The Strength of an Educative Environment
