Strategy vs Technology

During World War II, Admirals and Generals focused on strategic and operational decisions which were then passed on to their subordinates in the form of commanders guidance.  These same subordinates were expected to shape their operational and tactical plans around this commanders guidance.  

Today, Admirals and Generals (sometimes even Presidents) spend much of their time playing platoon commander.  They are focused on ISR feeds, deciding whether or not something is a valid shoot or not.  They are looking at maintenance status of individual units and questioning why this brigade or that squadron hasn't improved their readiness.  Tactical units, even SOF, need to submit confirmation briefs to a dozen different organizations to get permission to execute a platoon raid to grab a mid level insurgent leader, delaying their reaction time, but ensuring that every flag officer between them and the President has a chance to weigh in.

Is this because technology allows it, or because the stakes are so small that the Admirals and Generals just don't have anything strategically important to worry about? What are your thoughts?

Posted on September 17, 2015 .