Today, we will hear outside perspectives on Operation Iraqi Freedom and implications for future warfare and U.S. national security policy. As with any war waged by the United States, it is critical that we engage in an open and vigorous critique of our actions so that future military leaders can draw the correct lessons and apply them to the next conflict. One need only look at the erroneous lessons learned by the French military following World War I to see the value of a rigorous lessons-learned effort.

The aftermath of OIF raises some serious questions on the future of warfare. Chief among these is whether the major combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom is the last war of some former era in warfare, or the first war of a new era. Some observers believe that speed, precision and superior knowledge were the reasons for success in Iraq and herald a new type of warfare. If we invest in more high-tech systems that provide perfect knowledge of the battlefield, and combine them with increasingly capable precision weapons, we can ensure victory in any future conflict. To this, I would remind my friends that chess players always have perfect knowledge of the board, and their pieces always strike with perfect precision - but this does not always ensure a successful game.

Others have suggested just the opposite - that the major conflict phase of OIF holds few lessons for future conflicts. They argue that future wars will look more like the current phase of Iraqi Freedom, with its various religious and ethnic factions and rivalries, foreign terrorists, shadowy non-state actors, guerilla bombings, and hidden weapons of mass destruction. Emerging non-traditional threats, not conventional land forces, will be the real threat. In this environment, more human intelligence, rapidly deployable and flexible forces and superior training hold the key to victory.