Sen. Douglas Mastriano, PhD, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)
In August 1914, the French Army marched into war convinced that courage could overcome technology. Their doctrine rested on the theories of Colonel Louis de Grandmaison, who argued that the offensive spirit — the bayonet and the will to attack — would decide modern battle. French soldiers trained for frontal assaults in the tradition of Napoleon. They believed élan — the fighting spirit — would carry them through enemy fire. But war had changed.
At the Meuse River town of Dinant, a young French lieutenant named Charles de Gaulle led his platoon forward with the famed French 33rd Infantry Regiment. The attack unfolded as if lifted from another century. Bugles sounded. Drums beat. Flags waved in the wind. The men surged forward across a bridge toward German positions, bayonets fixed, marching into what they believed would be a decisive assault.
Waiting for them were machine guns. What followed was slaughter. De Gaulle was among the first to fall, struck by a bullet that shattered his fibula. From the ground, he witnessed the collapse of the doctrine he had been trained to trust. He later wrote of that terrible moment:
“Suddenly the enemy’s fire became precise and concentrated… bugles sounded the charge… isolated heroes made fantastic leaps, but all to no purpose. In an instant it had become clear that not all the courage in the world could withstand this fire.”
In just two weeks of fighting, the French Army lost roughly 210,000 men — many in frontal assaults against entrenched machine guns. Their courage was unquestionable. Their doctrine was fatal. The tragedy at Dinant was not a failure of bravery. It was a failure of adaptation. Technology had changed war — but doctrine had not. Today, more than a century later, we stand at a similar turning point.
The Drones Over Iran
The battlefield lessons unfolding across the Middle East today are as significant as those learned on the Western Front in 1914. Iran’s expanding use of drones and missile systems has demonstrated how modern warfare is shifting away from traditional massed maneuver toward distributed, precision strike networks.
Recent conflicts involving Iran have revealed the scale of this transformation. Tehran has launched thousands of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles across the region, targeting infrastructure and military installations across multiple countries, demonstrating mass drone warfare is no longer experimental — it is operational reality.
These attacks are not random acts of harassment. They represent a deliberate shift in the character of warfare. Modern conflicts are no longer defined solely by territorial movement or armored maneuver. Instead, they are increasingly dominated by long-range precision strike systems, drone swarms and layered air-defense battles that shape outcomes before ground forces even engage.
What makes this transformation especially dangerous is its accessibility. Many of Iran’s drones cost tens of thousands of dollars — far cheaper than the interceptors required to defeat them. That imbalance creates a new form of warfare in which the attacker relies on volume and persistence rather than technological superiority. In short, the battlefield is no longer defined by massed armies alone. It is defined by massed effects.
Ukraine Was the Warning — Iran Is the Confirmation
If Ukraine revealed the coming revolution, Iran is confirming it. The war in Ukraine showed the world what drone warfare could do to armored formations and static positions. Iranian-designed drones were used extensively in that conflict, providing early proof that inexpensive unmanned systems could challenge even modern militaries. But the current Middle Eastern battlefield has expanded the lesson.
Where Ukraine demonstrated tactical drone warfare, Iran has demonstrated strategic drone warfare — launching coordinated missile and drone attacks across multiple nations simultaneously. These operations highlight how relatively inexpensive systems can threaten regional stability, infrastructure and military forces on a scale once reserved for major powers. Even U.S. and allied installations have faced persistent drone threats, forcing high-end defensive systems into continuous operation and raising serious questions about long-term sustainability. That reality alone signals a profound shift in warfare.
Every Military Revolution Begins With Denial
History shows that revolutions in warfare are rarely recognized at first. Instead, they are resisted. Before World War I, cavalry officers insisted horse-mounted maneuvers would remain decisive. Before World War II, many leaders believed tanks were secondary tools. Before the Gulf War, skeptics doubted the importance of precision-guided weapons. In every case, the battlefield eventually delivered clarity at a horrible cost in lives.
The French Army in 1914 believed doctrine rooted in courage would carry them forward. Instead, they encountered a battlefield transformed by technology. Today, the transformation is digital. Sensors, networks, autonomous systems and artificial intelligence are reshaping how wars are fought and won. The side that sees first strikes first. The side that strikes first dominates the tempo of battle. The battlefield has become transparent. And transparency kills.
The Danger of Fighting the Last War
Much of today’s military force structure remains rooted in assumptions forged during the Cold War. The armored formations, aviation platforms and missile systems that defined victory in the late twentieth century remain formidable, but they were built for a different kind of battlefield.
Since then, the character of conflict has changed dramatically. Drone warfare, electronic warfare, cyber operations and long-range precision fires now define the tempo of battle. The cost of surveillance has collapsed. The ability to strike has expanded. The time between detection and destruction has shrunk. These are not incremental improvements but structural changes that represent a revolution in military affairs.
The Lesson From Dinant Matters to Pennsylvania
The French Army in 1914 did not fail because its soldiers lacked courage. They failed because their leaders misunderstood how war had changed. Technology had rewritten the rules of the battlefield — but doctrine remained frozen in the past. Today, drones fill the skies where machine guns once dominated the battlefield.
The warning from Dinant echoes across the modern battlefield. We are living through a revolution in military affairs. The evidence is visible above cities, across deserts, and along front lines around the world. The only question that remains is whether we will adapt in time — or repeat history the hard way. Because revolutions in warfare never wait for those who hesitate.
As chairman of the Pennsylvania Senate Veterans Affairs and Emergency Preparedness Committee, I see this challenge not only as a national responsibility, but as a state responsibility as well. In that role, I exercise oversight of the Pennsylvania National Guard — the third largest in the nation — made up of our sons and daughters who stand ready to deploy alongside the active-duty U.S. Army when the nation calls. The revolution in military affairs now unfolding is not an abstract theory debated in Washington; it directly affects the readiness, survivability and battlefield success of the men and women from our communities who will fight the next war. At the state level, we must do all we can to support our National Guard, ensure their modernization and preparedness, and stand shoulder to shoulder with the active-duty force so that when the next major conflict comes — as history assures us it will — America’s soldiers are ready not merely to fight, but to win and dominate the battlefield of the future.
Sen. Douglas Mastriano represents the 33rd Senate District, covering all of Adams and Franklin counties.