Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Stephen Sikevich
Guest: Amos C. Fox (co-editor, with Franz-Stefan Gady, of Multidomain Operations: The Pursuit of Battlefield Dominance in the 21st Century - Howgate Publishing, 2026)
Date: February 14, 2026

This episode features an in-depth conversation with Amos C. Fox, unpacking his latest edited volume on Multidomain Operations (MDO), a critical concept in 21st-century military doctrine. The discussion explores MDO’s origins, theoretical challenges, practical implications for force structure, and lessons from recent conflicts such as Ukraine, along with broader reflections on military history, innovation, and realistic threat appraisal.

Main Themes

• Definition and Origins of Multidomain Operations (MDO)
• The Gap Between Concept and Context
• Challenges in Implementing MDO
• Historical Parallels and Lessons
• Technology vs Continuities of Warfare
• The Indo-Pacific Theater and MDO
• Allied and Adversary Approaches
• Traits of Modern Conflicts and Future War
• Critical Reflections on American Strategic Culture

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction and Book Genesis

• Amos Fox’s background as a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, academic, podcaster, and managing editor (Small Wars Journal).
• The book emerged from a publisher’s request to address the information gap on MDO:

  “The publisher came to me...There's no book about MDO out right now...I can probably put together an edited volume.” (05:25)

• International collaboration: Contributors from the U.S., Brazil, Japan, Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Israel, Austria.
• The book’s structure intentionally brackets contributions into thematic “big buckets.” (06:00)

2. What is Multidomain Operations?

Definition:

“It’s the idea essentially of just integrated joint operations across multiple domains... Trying to apply combat power in a unified fashion when and where it's needed on the battlefield, across all domains.” (07:14)

• MDO evolved to account for new domains: particularly cyber and space, not previously well-articulated in U.S. military doctrine.
• It seeks to integrate capabilities for rapid, tailored application of force.

3. Origins & Evolution

• Born as Multi Domain Battle (Army focus), responding to Russia's 2014-15 Ukraine intervention and its advanced "recon-strike complex" (e.g., drones, networked sensors, long-range fires).

  “If you can be seen, you can be killed immediately.” (10:05)

• Concept shifted from theater/threat-specific to generalized doctrine, expanding to counter China in the Indo-Pacific.
• This loss of specific focus is cited as a major flaw:

  “It transitioned from being a focused concept... to an unfocused doctrine.” (13:45)

4. Concept vs. Context: The Problem of Universality

“You can't have a universal concept for fighting... the way you're going to fight China in the Indo-Pacific fundamentally is different than... Russia in Europe.” (14:44)

• MDO should be an overarching principle, not a one-size-fits-all doctrine.
• Doctrine must be threat- and theater-specific.

"Military should always be thinking about applying all military capabilities across all domains... But to operationalize it... there needs to be a part one through X on the different theaters and threats." (16:23)

5. Implementation Challenges: Force Structure and Overreliance on Technology

• The U.S. Army’s adaptation to MDO alters force structure:
  • Creation of Multi-Domain Task Forces
  • Reduction and reshaping of Brigade Combat Teams (e.g., from 4,500 to 1,900 personnel, replacing humans with technology).
• This risks hollowing out ground-holding capabilities:

  “You can have all this great strike and sensing capability, but then what happens on the ground after?” (22:45)

  • Emphasizes history's lessons: you need troops to take and hold ground.
• Overreliance on special forces and technological solutions mirrors past errors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

6. Military History’s Enduring Lessons

“You can't forget military history ... military history has several continuities ... take, retake, hold, and clear territory; protect populations ... if you have force structure and doctrine that don't support those, you're stepping off in the wrong direction.” (32:14)

• U.S. military education often sidelines history in favor of “practical” exercises—seen as a costly error.

“Without that grounding in military history, it's hard to replicate [good decisions] because everything then is discovery learning. And discovery learning is not the best way to approach war when you're in the middle of it.” (35:05)

7. Recent and Ongoing Conflicts: Ukraine, Adaptation, and Tech Hype

• Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh: Drones were initially dominant, but warfare reverted to positional, attritional models (trench warfare, artillery dominance).
• Tech Hype Cycle: Each “revolutionary” technology (drones, tanks, precision strike) quickly spawns countermeasures.

“That challenge-response dynamic always exists and will always exist... the initial punch doesn’t guarantee victory.” (51:44)

• Artillery’s indispensable role and skepticism toward declaring legacy systems (tanks, artillery) as “dead.”

8. The Indo-Pacific: MDO in a Maritime-Air Theater

• MDO application here is primarily an enabling concept for “getting to the fight”—overcoming Chinese anti-access/area denial capabilities is a cyber, space, air, and naval challenge.

“It's far more a cyber, right, a cyberspace sensing question and then a long-range strike question plus... naval and air component. So it's like very much everything minus the land domain [at first].” (64:50)

• “Island hopping” again possible if China seizes or fortifies islands—needs ground forces to seize/hold terrain (68:10).
• Allies (Australia, Japan): Each has their own MDO flavor, raising interoperability questions.

9. Adversary Approaches

• China’s concept: “informationized warfare” and “systems destruction” track elements of MDO; arguably more coherent in their application of systems theory (72:00).
• Russia: Despite “multi-domain” elements (cyber, irregular warfare), their essence remains land-centric and attritional—focused on exhausting the enemy.

10. Modern Warfare Characteristics and the Future

• 21st-century wars: Long, attritional, positional, increasingly urban, with ‘control’ as the purpose, and armies as the decisive tool.

“Wars in the 21st century are long... They're attritional... focused on exhaustion... and fought by armies. All the other services... support the fight on the ground...” (76:16)

• The perils of inflated tech-driven optimism vs. the real demands of protracted conflict:

  “We sell off so much redundancy and robustness for cool technology that's going to fall flat when that first punch goes.” (83:01)

11. Final Reflections: How Concepts Should Evolve

“When we think about developing concepts... concepts have to be driven by an idea first... not by technology.” (100:39)

• Urges caution with MDO: It should be regarded as a principle of warfare, not a universal doctrine—and must be tailored to threat and environment to be more than hollow rhetoric.

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• “If you can be seen, you can be killed immediately.” — Amos Fox on battlefield transparency and Russian recon-strike complex (10:05)
• “We try to find an easy button solution, like one answer for all the problems, and that's just not the case.” (19:55)
• “You can have all the drones in the world, but they can't land and hold terrain.” (59:59)
• “Military should be a Swiss army knife, but we're always looking to have some sort of lightsaber.” (63:24)
• “A system... wants to survive. When you're at a disadvantage and getting hit from above, you're going to go underground. It's basic systems thinking.” (38:20)
• “Wars are long, they're attritional, and exhaustion is the goal. You can't win quickly just by assuming a decisive blow.” (76:16, 81:58)
• “We just get caught up in watching drone strikes on TV... but that's not contributing to winning or losing necessarily.” (80:32)
• “Concepts have to be driven by an idea first... you can't just hand wave a general concept and say this applies everywhere.” (100:39)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [02:12] – Amos Fox's background & genesis of the book
• [07:14] – What is Multidomain Operations? Definition
• [08:49] – Historical origins: Russian operations in Ukraine, recon-strike complex
• [12:42] – Why MDO was needed for contemporary conflict
• [14:44] – Problems with universalizing military doctrine
• [19:55] – Military history: Concept vs context
• [21:58]-[25:47] – U.S. Army restructuring for MDO, risks, and force structure critique
• [26:26]-[30:02] – Special forces vs infantry, Iraq experience
• [30:43]-[35:05] – Germany, WWI/WWII, enduring military history lessons
• [37:39]-[39:00] – Systems theory and its misapplication
• [43:46]-[46:57] – U.S. approach to partner armies (Afghanistan, Ukraine) and mirror-imaging critique
• [51:44] – Tech hype cycle, challenge-response dynamic
• [54:49]-[59:41] – Tech narrative, drones and artillery, lessons from past wars
• [63:24]-[67:46] – MDO in Indo-Pacific, role of landpower
• [71:37]-[75:18] – China, Russia, and their approaches to multi-domain conflict
• [76:16]-[81:15] – What characterizes 21st-century war?
• [100:39] – Final thoughts: How to use concepts, caution with MDO universalism
• [102:50] – Amos Fox’s next projects and upcoming books

Tone & Language

The episode is intellectually rigorous, conversational, and occasionally wry—Fox balances technical clarity with military storytelling, using frank, sometimes humorous language (“easy button solution,” “Turkish drone advocacy feeling like a paid endorsement,” “Swiss army knife vs lightsaber”). Both host and guest frequently ground abstract strategic ideas in concrete historical examples and soldier’s-eye-view anecdotes, making complex topics accessible and relatable.

Conclusion: Takeaways for Listeners

• MDO is a vital but incomplete principle—its overgeneralization risks hollow doctrine.
• Military innovation must not eclipse the enduring realities of warfare: holding ground, redundancy, and adapting to local context are as essential as harnessing new domains.
• Contemporary conflict is long, attritional, and adaptive. A flexible, historically informed, multi-domain—but not mono-doctrinal—military is the true requirement for the 21st century.

Fox’s reflections and the book itself are a call for military and policy professionals to root strategy in specific threats, environments, and historical continuities—not tech optimism or conceptual fashion.

For Further Engagement

• Amos Fox’s podcast: Revolution in Military Affairs (deep-dives with practitioners and thinkers)
• Upcoming books: Maneuver is Dead and a project on systems thinking in military theory.