The Army should incorporate innovation lessons learned throughout its history to prepare for the future fight, according to a new paper published by the Association of the U.S. Army.

“When at war, the U.S. Army has generally been adept at innovating new technologies, organizations and techniques. But in peacetime, it has been less effective,” Maj. Robert Rose writes. “Now, we are at peace. So how can we improve how we innovate to ensure the Army wins the first battle of its next war?” 

In “Army Innovation: Lessons From 250 Years of Army Innovation,” Rose argues that Army innovation succeeds when the service identifies a specific problem to solve, minimizes bureaucracy, gives soldiers time to innovate and train as they would fight, and prioritizes feasible solutions to employ in the context of near-term strategic problems.

Rose, who commands Alpine Troop, 3rd Squadron, 4th Security Forces Assistance Brigade, and is a fellow with the LTG (Ret.) James M. Dubik Writing Fellows Program, also analyzes lessons from wars the Army fought in throughout history.

Innovation efforts prior to World War I were “isolated,” and the Army “lacked a clear vision of modern war,” writes Rose, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, who also has graduate degrees from Harvard University and Cambridge University as a Gates Scholar.

In the face of bureaus that “were incapable of meeting the demands of mobilization,” though, the American Expeditionary Forces used its clear mission to rapidly take lessons learned from allies and the battlefield.

By World War II, the Army utilized large-scale exercises to prepare for war. Through tools like the Desert Training Center in California, units learned to fight in a climate like what those fighting in North Africa would experience, and projects that improved ammunition, tanks and other equipment were made possible, Rose writes.

Later, during the global war on terrorism, the Army struggled to innovate its equipment and its counterinsurgency doctrine, Rose writes. The slow pace of innovation stalled procurement of MRAP vehicles to protect soldiers from IEDs several years after they were the leading cause of soldier deaths, and a lack of doctrine meant soldiers were rotated into war too briefly to deeply understand the local population or develop “stabilization techniques,” he writes.

Today, soldiers “can be incredible innovators” given an in-depth understanding of a problem and time to innovate, Rose writes, citing command post decoys created by the 101st Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade, and its innovation lab, which supports command post survivability when adversaries target the decoys.

Taking the lessons from the Army’s history of innovation is key to the future fight, Rose writes.

“We can learn from the Army’s 250 years of innovation, both its successes and struggles, to ensure that the Army takes the right direction in innovating equipment, doctrine and organizations before the next war,” he writes. “Too often, due to poor peacetime preparation, the Army has lost the first battles of its wars only to innovate in wartime at the cost of our soldiers’ lives. We cannot assume we will have that luxury in the future.”

Read the paper here.