One does not have to look far to sense a common theme about the uncertainty that faces the United States in the future. In response to the future strategic environment, some call for a dramatic transformation of the “outmoded” US security structure. There is some bipartisan, but certainly not unanimous, agreement that a transformation strategy is needed to move beyond current security structures to those the nation will need in the future.¹ Still others claim that future success depends on refining existing concepts of warfare.² Some openly deride the military’s awkward approach to the strategic future, while others denounce utopian...

Is there an ideal model for military transformation? While proffering all-encompassing models of strategic innovation is reckless, several authors attempt to provide insight into patterns of innovation.¹ These studies demonstrate there are some recurring trends that warrant closer consideration. In that light, this chapter addresses the original question by systematically bounding the problem, then using the historical record and logical reasoning to identify potential facets of a transformation model.

First, I discuss the definition of innovation and transformation as they apply to my model. Next, I address the importance of contingency and its influence on likely patterns of transformation. The...

Since the dawn of the space age, the US military has struggled to develop a space power vision.¹ For 40 years, competition with the Soviet Union shaped the military approach to space exploitation. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the success of space support in Operation Desert Storm heralded a new era for space power. Still, much of the promise of space power has gone unfulfilled in the last decade because of inconsistent concepts about how to control and exploit the advantages offered by space. In that light, this chapter investigates the question: “Does the military have a coherent,...

The last chapter demonstrated that the military space power vision has been cyclical. Presently, rapid change and a lack of demonstrated congruence with the civilian vision impede the military vision. Even if the modern civil-military vision for space power is unclear, it is important to study the evolution of the military space power culture. Chapter 2 explained why culture was important to the success of transformation in greater detail, but a few points bear repeating. The vision crafted by senior leaders is mainly conceptual, so it falls to the military community to develop competing theories of victory—military strategies—to...

The final characteristic of successful transformation that requires scrutiny is assessment. Regardless of the force behind the space power vision or the essence of the military culture, the services claim to effectively assess theories of victory in all areas. The goal of this chapter is to determine how valid that claim is with regard to space power. The focus is on military assessment for two reasons. First, civilian leaders generally depend on a management structure that responds to agenda proposals or emerging threats. For instance, the National Security Council staff is not set up to conduct systematic space topic reviews,...

This paper set out to answer two fundamental questions. First, is there a historical pattern of transformation? If so, is it a practical tool or an irrelevant intellectual exercise? Second, if such a tool exists, can it be used to answer the following: Is the US military effectively transforming space power in order to significantly enhance national security over the next quarter century? This chapter provides concise answers to both questions.

The validity and value of the model is considered first because it has greater implications for the future. Next, the specific case of space power is discussed with regard...