1. Revolutions do not wait for any man, those who are less adaptable to them will painfully suffer the consequences however those who are more flexible and adaptable. An idea that corroborates the advertising carried out by the army school system in relation to the development of the new leaders of the new era.

Here I resort more to the term of resilience, which is nothing more than surviving changing and adverse scenarios with a high dose of flexibility. This rapid response and adaptation to state-of-the-art systems in the technological field, and systems that are part of avant-garde institutions, demand competent hands and adapt in the best way to their processes.

2. Those who live by the military revolution may well die for it, and over time, competition will reach them. This second statement explains how far we can go with a revolution, obviously without neglecting the idea that those who are more flexible to adapt to change, even the adversaries themselves, could go even further. Changes are not the last step in giving, nor the first.

I think I do not agree with this option, because if we talk about quixotic actions, most of the dreamers are in the cemeteries. In other words, to a large extent, and it has been corroborated in almost the entire history of humanity; Revolutions do not always comment on what they were implemented. The causes are supported by extractive institutions to favor the vast majority, while successful revolutions manage over time to structure inclusive institutions in which the vast majority is benefited. Therefore, very little would come into play the flexibility to adapt to systems, except those, the product of a revolution.

3. The predominance in a war zone inspires others to launch their revolution in their own zone. This approach makes us think of innovation as a response to revolutionary changes during the competition. Stephenson names as an example the change of the weak forces of Al-Qaeda, who adapting to change and being flexible, changed their objectives towards the United States Army. Innovation in the world of war is the only thing that should not change in order to maintain its consistency and effectiveness.

Offensive realism requires counterweights, therefore, not only the great powers have that right won. Many of the conflicts in the world are asymmetric, which implies that there are goliaths and davids looking for prominence on the board. In addition, terrorist cells, insurgent groups and criminal gangs have exploited the most factors in relation to ADR. Its very survival depends on its high flexibility and resistance.

4. Even before it matures on the battlefield, a revolution can generate a «counter-revolution», which means that one should not run the risk of wasting time by prudence or waiting to see if the strategy proposed by the opposing team works. Research and development teams, right after announcements of new weapons programs, should start developing new countermeasures.

This will depend on where the roots of the revolution are located. It is very true that a margin of action could make a difference as a surprise factor or in the «operational tempo». However, all the effort after a revolution must be used to reconstruct the bases of the new structures and systems. For this reason, I consider that this assertion does not have major incidence, because, this dialectic is part of the process itself, and a counter revolution, per se, covers aspects of measures and countermeasures to the adversary, threat, risks, or critical factor to change.

5. We guide the revolution in military affairs; we lead the military revolutions. Which means that we lead the course of the war, we are the ones who will lead the dramatic changes in society even when they are beyond our control. A brilliant example presented by the author is that the very strength of nationalism and the spirit of reform that made the armies of Napoleon so formidable, was what inspired his own enemies, causing a drastic change in society. In short, this point could be summarized in that there is no time to close your eyes to enjoy the victory.

Within the role played by successful revolutions, among others, leaders are those who carry the center of gravity on their shoulders. However, in a symbiotic way, the nation generates that reaction or action. This interrelation, I do not undermine in any way all those ideals that have been shaped as the revolution advances. Here all the factors, positive and negative, and all those that produced it come into play. Ergo, it could not be supported only by these factors, then, history has shown, that revolutions, at least today, are interdependent of many factors. What happens in Greece, to a greater or lesser extent, hits the pockets of the whole world, directly or indirectly. Another example, quite fashionable, is the use of drones, a situation that has impacted the entire world, not only in the military branches but its use in many areas.

6. Not all military revolutions are based on technology, this is complemented by revolutionary spirit, innovative leadership and flexible tactical organization. The difference is in the ‘software’ of military innovation as well as in that of armament; focusing only on one of these two elements could blind the world in other tendencies.

The doctrine of employment, coupled with excellent programs form modern and effective systems. To this concept must be added the execution knowledge that the operators have, and to this, the expertise of the middle managers and levels of command or management. All this chain of leadership or management, does not ensure a success in the RMA, which in fact, would have an expected impact, as long as there are parallel systems that ensure such effectiveness, which would be nothing more than control systems minimization of risks, as the assurance of quality. Controls that in the end, not only ensure the success of an RMA, but most importantly, the revolution in time and space.

LT. CMDR. EDWIN ORTEGA S.

GUAYAQUIL, SEPTIEMBRE 2018