Revolution in Military Logistics

This thesis conducts an analysis of the United States Army’s changes in tactical logistics organizations and doctrine from 1999 to 2006 and compares them against published literature to determine if changes made have been revolutionary in nature and meet the goals established by Army leadership. Using military historians MacGregor Knox and Williamson Murray’s definition of a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) as its measure, it determines if the collective changes in the doctrine, organization, training, mission, leadership, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) of tactical logistics organizations meet the criteria for an RMA or are simply evolutionary in order to meet the challenges of the contemporary operating environment. Based on qualitative analysis, it concludes that the United States Army is not making any revolutionary changes in the doctrine, training, materiel, or facilities of its logistics system. However, it is making revolutionary changes in the organization, leadership, and personnel of its logistics system. Finally, it concludes that based on the seven focus areas determined by the author for a Revolution in Military Logistics, the Army has achieved two and is on the path to achieving the other five, however, with no concrete timeline.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.