To me, the problems is everyone is walking on eggshells, afraid to make a decision out of fear of retribution fueled by felonious reporting by the media.
That is not only what is impacting the military but our governments, corporations and even our citizens..
When the guy in the field is facing micromanagement and second-guess judgement from people who are not even in theater, and some of whom (press, especially) who have never been in combat, they have enemies fore and aft, unfortunately.
If anything 'goes wrong' (which could include everything from not meeting objectives to collateral damage or worse, casualties), they face not only the enemy there, but tribunal or trial in the press here, at a minimum.
Not only does this predictably make acting on initiative less attractive, but there is the ever present threat of being thrown under the bus to save some one else's opportunities for advancement, or to satiate some reporter's lust for lust anti-military stories. Not acting because of those threats could produce results that are hard to live with as well.
Compound this with Rules of Engagement that might be questionable or even dangerous for our service members, and it gets even worse.
Small wonder the suicide rate is so high. There's a lot of "Damned if you do and damned if you don't." involved.
If I am wrong, please, someone who has more than my 'cheap seats' view, enlighten me.
With the tech available, I can see coordination, even some serious information exchange, but ultimately the split-second decisions and actions depend on the guys with boots on the ground. It's what they are trained for, and must continue to be trained for, in case the tech doesn't work (for whatever reason). While there is tremendous potential to coordinate forces from all branches in the area of operations, if that communication breaks down, there have to be alternatives that can permit continued tactical and even strategic effectiveness.