Network technologies are just now emerging but are being driven at a frenzied pace in the commercial marketplace. A variety of advanced tools beyond "hot link" browsing are being introduced daily. Data browsers, brokers, gatherers, and network repositories are being released, as demonstrated by products like Harvester and Netscape's Catalog Server. Platform independent languages such as JAVA and their associated virtual computational engines promise the same network flexibility for programs that is now enjoyed by data.
Perhaps the most important area of technology development for Rapid Dominance is the development of practical object-oriented architectures and protocols. Protocols such as CORBA, OLE, ALSP, HLA and DIS are changing the face of computing, making it much easier to link programs and databases, and access and correlate information that was previously "entombed" within its legacy application.
[Footnote 1: CORBA (common object request broker architecture), OLE (object linking and embedding), ALSP (aggregate level simulation protocol), HLA (high-level architecture), DIS (Distributed Interactive Simulation). These are all protocols or the architectures defining protocols that, in part, enable disparate software and/or hardware components to be linked or otherwise share information and logical elements.]
One interesting application area migrating toward an object-oriented approach is geospatial databases. In the past, geospatial data were stored as either raster-based or vector information, and significant processing was required for users to make queries regarding roads, areas, or objects such as building sites. A new approach, called a spatial database engine, creates intuitive objects from standard geospatial databases and uses commercial databases to add attributes to the objects. This is a very powerful technique that allows geospatial data, a key element of warfighting, to be managed quickly and efficiently using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software. It is particularly useful for distributed databases such as one would find on a network.
Modeling and simulation is also benefiting from object-oriented technologies. Simulations were once stand-alone codes. If one wanted to simulate a joint battle, one began with an existing model (i.e., land combat) and then modified it to include other components (i.e., aircraft and ships). Similarly, if a new technology were to be modeled, new code normally had to be written, even in cases where good, validated, stand-alone technology models existed. The obvious drawbacks to this approach are that it is costly, often produces inferior simulations for the new additions, and quickly results in extremely large codes with commensurate large code management problems. Object-oriented approaches allow models and simulations to be linked to form a richer environment for examining new technologies and joint force structures.
Linking force-on-force simulations with design tools such as computer-aided design (CAD) programs and physics-based simulations presents a new type of tool referred to as simulation-based design. Once fully realized, this capability will allow new technologies to be much more easily evaluated, introducing a source for greater efficiency into today's somewhat haphazard acquisition system.
Simulations based on object-oriented architectures also promise more flexibility that will enable scenarios and unexpected situations to be made as inputs and simulated rapidly, forming the core for a battlefield visualization system capable of modeling "what if" situations. Outputs from these simulations could be used for mission rehearsal. Even today, pilots and special operations forces often "fly through" crude, three-dimensional renderings of a mission area to familiarize themselves with information such as surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites and landmarks.
The promise of computational technologies brings with it potential vulnerabilities that must be protected against threats. In a world where information plays a vital role in warfare, information collection and processing tools will become targets. Defenses against information warfare must be developed. The threat is real and is growing especially in the commercial and private sectors. Even today, malicious hackers devise data-destroying viruses and distribute them through a plethora of electronic media; numerous sites on the Net are dedicated to the discussion and development of offensive computer viruses, with ample tools for even the novice to download and employ. Moreover, computer crimes cost the world economy billions of dollars annually. Although information warfare poses serious threats, the realm of information is where operations underlying Rapid Dominance most reside, and the enemy will find himself fully engaged should he choose to fight on our terms. Rapid Dominance is essentially information warfare on a grand scale in all dimensions of offensive, defensive and leveraging effective use of available information.
One of the modern communication devices being fielded within U.S. forces today is the SINGCARS radio. With a data rate of somewhat less than 10 kbps, SINGCARS is woefully inadequate for supporting Rapid Dominance. However, more appropriate technologies are emerging:
- GBS and other satellite broadcast services - Wider bandwidth, digital communication protocols - Asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switches - Advanced comm relay platforms (UAV, Lightsat, Iridium, etc.)
GBS, for example, figures prominently in the BADD (battlefield awareness and data dissemination) program that aims at providing close to 30 Mbps of data broadcast bandwidth. This will be supported by multi-terrabyte databases, advanced data browsers, and query managers, and will be linked to the Joint Tactical Internet.
Networking must also be supported by communications technologies. The basic problem of a battlefield network is that while some nodes may support very large data pipes, a number of nodes will be operating at SINGCARS data rates. This led to the BADD notion of one-way data broadcasting via GBS of large data files (such as UAV video and overhead imagery) and very low bandwidth data querying back to the data sources.
Modern communications will tend to be more multimedia-based, which is particularly important for Rapid Dominance, where decisions must be made quickly based upon very large quantities of data, some of which will be collected and transmitted in real time. Technologies such as digital video teleconferencing, virtual whiteboards, and even 3D virtual environments where commanders may participate in collaborative planning sessions will become important.
Finally, battlefield communications must be secure and, where feasible, non-observable to the enemy.
Control of the Environment
The actual attack of targets in order to induce Shock and Awe may, in some sense, be considered a subset of controlling the enemy's perception. It will not always be necessary to destroy numerous targets in order to induce shock. However, it would be vitally important to give the appearance that there are no safe havens from attack, and that any target may be attacked at any time with impunity and force. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, confusion must be imposed on the adversary by supplying only information which will shape the adversary's perceptions and help break his will. Finally, the enemy must be displaced from selected key positions, for if he is allowed to occupy those areas that he considers strategically important, it is difficult to imagine how his shock could be complete.
Controlling an enemy's perception of the battlespace includes manipulating his view of the threat, his own troops and status, and the environment in which he operates. This will be accomplished by selectively denying knowledge to the enemy while presenting him with information that is either misleading or serves our purposes. Sensing and feedback of an enemy leadership's perception of the situation will be critical.
Technologies of interest here include those that allow systems and entire force units to modify their signature from being very stealthy to being completely obvious. An ability to attack enemy information systems will also be critical, encompassing system technologies from laser-based counter sensor weapons to embedded computer viruses, commonly referred to as Trojan Horses. In all cases, the goal will be to deny the enemy any information that would be useful to him and to impose a construct of deception and misinformation at all levels of operations.
Clearly, technologies necessary to achieve battlefield awareness already mentioned will be crucial in allowing a "perception attack" (a form of information warfare) to be successfully carried out. The need and requirements for Battlefield Damage Assessment (BDA) will increase dramatically. It will be necessary to understand not only whether a target was killed but also how enemy leadership, troops, and society viewed this destruction.
So far, primarily information technologies have been discussed. Obviously, there will continue to be requirements for numerous other types of systems. Among the more important system technologies critical to achieving control of the environment include:
- Weapons platforms with stealth technology - Weapons systems - Robotic systems
One of the fundamental rationales for weapons platforms is to move people and ordinance to within an effective range of the target. Centuries before smart weapons and robotic systems, this reasoning was understood intuitively. Since ordinance must still be placed on the target, weapons platforms such as described below still demand consideration.
- Stealthy bombers and strike aircraft either land or sea platform based - Arsenal ships - Submarines with conventional cruise missiles - Stealthy land vehicles - Stealthy observation/attack helicopters
Stealth, combined with stand off, will contribute strongly to the protection of manned systems on the modern battlefield and will also be used extensively for other, high-value unmanned systems. However, protection of the force is inherent within the concept of Rapid Dominance, and it will rely upon the control of information and the enemy's perception of events, stealth being one of the elements enabling this control.
Smart munitions will be required on the future battlefield. Linked with information technologies, the combination will allow killing any target that can be identified. The main element Rapid Dominance requires of weapons systems is the ability to be rapidly focused on objectives as identified and targeted by commanders using the information management systems already discussed. Commanders will require the flexibility to call massive, precision strikes or to attack individual, high-priority targets with near zero CEP. This implies a mixture of weapons comprised of systems such as those mentioned below.
- Cruise missiles - Zero CEP, long-range cruise missile ("President's weapon") - Stand-off submunition platforms - Smart submunitions - Brilliant submunitions - Wide area smart mines - Long-range and short-range surface attack missiles
Robotic systems are an important area of consideration within Rapid Dominance. First, selected robotic systems will enable the force by making it more responsive in concentrating sensors and weapons. Second, they will make fighting a 24-hour battle feasible even with reduced manpower within the force structure. Third, robotic systems can provide force presence even in areas considered too dangerous for a large manned element. Finally, since the ultimate operational goal of Rapid Dominance is to create shock, one may consider the effect that fighting robotic systems may have on the enemy.
In examining the utility of robotic systems within Rapid Dominance, one must first consider that, by any measure, robotic systems have not lived up to the optimistic expectations placed on them in the past. From the overburdening of the Aquilla UAV to the massive and poorly planned investment in robotics made by General Motors in the early 1980s, robotics has been an area of unfulfilled promises. However, the reasons for a string of spectacular failures lie more with planners' faulty attempts to understand and incorporate the technology than by egregious shortcomings of the technology itself. Robots have been seen as replacements for manned systems rather than extremely complicated and capable machines suitable for a set of tightly defined tasks. Robotic systems, or taskable machines as some are beginning to refer to them, hold promise for the future simply because they represent the intersection of a myriad of fast-moving technology areas such as information technologies, communications, microelectronics, micro-electromechanical systems, simulation, and computer-aided design and manufacturing. In some sense, taskable machines are the physical embodiment of information technologies. It may well be that in the future the joke will be, "Never send a robot to do a man's job." But even so, there will be ample jobs for taskable machines and the society that learns to properly design, build, control, and integrate these systems into their force structure will gain significant advantage over any potential opponent.
The technologies and systems presented in this section are not extraordinary nor do they comprise a complete list. Indeed, entire fields such as materials, bioengineering, and microelectronics are left for future consideration, although they are of obvious and vital importance. Also not addressed here are the training, education, and organizational implications required under a regime of Rapid Dominance. Given the overriding importance of information collection and management, these will need to be addressed across the defense community as it is most broadly defined.
Rapid Dominance combines a doctrine and operational concept that challenges the current process of how new technologies invented in the commercial sector are incorporated into defense, and provides an affirmative methodology for research, development, and system integration. We must learn to exploit the potential of these technologies even though, in many cases, this development process in the private sector is profoundly independent from how we conduct the business of defense. It is this environment of innovative upheaval that any useful foundation for strategic and operational thought must address. Rapid Dominance capitalizes on, and may even require, this rapid and chaotic development of technology.
We believe that what will distinguish Rapid Dominance from other doctrines is first that it uses an intellectual construct to drive innovation and innovation to drive exploiting and integrating technology into new and perhaps somewhat differently constructed systems. Second, it is the comprehensive quality of Rapid Dominance in which strategies, doctrine, technology, systems, operations, training, organization, and education are dealt with together that may make the most significant difference. But, as the reader will discern, specific identification and design of Rapid Dominance systems is part of the next step.
At this stage, Rapid Dominance is an intellectual construct based on these key points. First, Rapid Dominance has evolved from the collective professional, policy, and operational experience of the study group covering the last four decades. This experience ran from Vietnam to Desert Storm and from serving with operational units in the field to being part of the decision-making process in the Oval Office in Washington. It also included immersion in technology and systems from thermonuclear weapons to advanced weapons software.
Second, Rapid Dominance seeks to exploit the unique juncture of strategy, technology, and innovation created by the end of the Cold War and to establish an alternative foundation for military doctrine and force structure.
Third, Rapid Dominance draws on the strategic uses of force as envisaged by Sun Tzu and Clausewitz to overpower or affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary for strategic aims and military objectives. But, in Rapid Dominance, the principal mechanism for affecting the adversary's will is through the imposition of a regime of Shock and Awe sufficient to achieve the aims of policy. It is this relationship with and reliance on Shock and Awe that differentiates Rapid Dominance from attrition, maneuver, and other military doctrines including overwhelming force.
Shock and Awe impact on psychological, perceptual, and physical levels. At one level, destroying an adversary's military force leaving the enemy impotent and vulnerable may provide the necessary Shock and Awe. At another level, the certainty of this outcome may cause an adversary to accept our terms well short of conflict. In the great middle ground, the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause the perception and anticipation of certain defeat and the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction.
Finally, in order to impose enough Shock and Awe to affect an adversary's will, four core characteristics of a Rapid Dominance- configured force were defined. First, complete knowledge and understanding of self, of the adversary, and of the environment are essential. This knowledge and understanding exceed the expectations of dominant battlefield awareness and DBA becomes a subset of Rapid Dominance.
Rather like the wise investor and not the speculator who is only familiar with a particular company and not the stock market in general, the Rapid Dominance force must have complete knowledge and understanding of many likely adversaries and regions. This requirement for knowledge and understanding will place a huge, new burden on the military forces and necessitate fundamental changes in policy, organization, training, education, structure, and equipage.
Second is rapidity. Rapidity combines speed, timeliness, and agility and the ability to sustain control after the initial shock. Rapidity enables us to act as quickly as needed and always more quickly than the adversary can react or take counter-actions. Rapidity is also an antidote to surprise. If we cannot anticipate surprise, or are surprised, rapidity provides a correcting capacity to neutralize the effects of that surprise.
Third, and most provocatively, is setting the standard of operations and execution in terms of brilliance. The consequences and implications of setting brilliance as the standard and achieving it are profound. Reconfiguration of command authority and organization possibly to decentrali-zation down to individual troops must follow. Allowing and encouraging an operational doctrine of the "first to respond" will set the tempo provided that effective de-confliction of friendly on friendly engagements has been assured.
This, of course, means that complete revision of doctrine, training, and organization will be required. The matter is not just "fighting smarter." It is learning to fight at even higher standards of skill and competence.
Fourth is control of the environment. Control is defined in the broadest sense: physical control of the land, air, sea, and space and control of the "ether" in which information is passed and received. This requires signature management throughout the full conflict spectrum-deception, disinformation, verification, information control, and target management-all with rapidity in both physical and psychological impact. By depriving an adversary of the physical use of time, space, and the ether, we play on the adversary's will and offer the prospect of certain destruction should resistance follow.
The next step in this process must be specifically defining this Rapid Dominance force in terms of force structure, capabilities, doctrine, organization, and order of battle. We have begun this effort and are focusing on a joint task force sized somewhere between a reinforced division and a full corps (i.e., a strength of 75,000 - 200,000). We also have the aim of being able to deploy this force within 5 to 10 days of the order to move and, of course, will be able to send smaller force packages on a nearly instantaneous basis. We appreciate the mobility and logistical implications of this requirement.
Once we design this "paper" force and equip it with "paper" systems, we must evaluate it against the five basic questions and tests we noted in the Prologue.
The first test of this Rapid Dominance force will be against the MRC. The comparison, in the broadest sense, must be with the programmed force and whatever emerges from the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997. We will need to examine closely how and where and why Rapid Dominance and Shock and Awe work and where they do not. At the very least, we expect that this will help strengthen the current force and improve current capabilities. Of course, it is our hope that this test will validate Rapid Dominance as a legitimate doctrine.
Second, the Rapid Dominance force must be tested across the entire spectrum of OOTW. These are the most difficult tests because, in some of them, no force may be suitable and no force may work.
Third, the test of determining the political consequences of Rapid Dominance must be conducted. On one hand, if this force capability can be achieved and Shock and Awe administered to affect an adversary's will, can a form of political deterrence be created? In the most approximate sense, and we emphasize approximate, the analogy with nuclear deterrence might be drawn. An adversary may be persuaded or deterred from taking action in the first instance. On the other hand, this capacity may be seen as politically unusable and allies and others within the United States may not be fully trusting of the possessor always to employ this force responsibly.
Fourth is the test of the implications of Rapid Dominance for alliances and for waging coalition warfare. Our allies are already concerned that the United States is leaving them far behind in military technology and capability. If we possess this force and our allies or partners do not, how do we fight together? Our view is that this can be worked out through technology sharing and perhaps new divisions of labor and mission specialization. However, these are important points to be considered.
Finally, what does all this mean for resource investments in defense?
It is also likely that because Rapid Dominance will cause profound consequences, the iron grip of the political bureaucracy will make a fair examination difficult. It is no accident that other attempts at change, especially those that ask for or are tainted with reform, have had a short life span. It is interesting to note in this regard that the President's Commission on Intelligence and its fine report that recommended changes and refinements to the U.S. intelligence community, despite a very positive initial reception, led to only a few meaningful actions.
This discussion leads to two final points. We are all too well aware that any strategy and force structure have vulnerabilities and potential weaknesses. The experiences that this study group collectively had in Vietnam makes this concern very strongly held. We observe that in the private sector, the vulnerability of information systems is real and is being exploited. A former director of the FBI has told us that in New York, for example, the number one recruiting target for organized crime is the teenage computer whiz. We think that this "hacking," writ large in the private sector, must be assumed as part of the defense problem. Hence, sensitivity to vulnerabilities must be even greater, perhaps ironically, than it was during the Cold War, because exploitation can come from many more sources in the future.
Second, wags may criticize Rapid Dominance as attempting to create a "Mission Impossible Force." To be sure, we emphasize and demand brilliance as the operational goal. However, we also know that the military today is seen as a leading example of the best American society has to offer. We wish to build on this reality. We note the experience and the performance, albeit under highly unusual circumstances, of Desert Storm. We see no reason why that level of performance cannot be made a permanent part of the fabric of the American military.
Because we have entered a period of transition in which we enjoy a dominant military position and a greatly reduced window of vulnerability, this is the right time for experimentation and demonstration. Rapid Dominance is still a concept and a work in progress, not a final road map or blueprint. But the concept does warrant, in our view, a commitment to explore and an opportunity that could lead to dramatically better capabilities.
We believe that through Rapid Dominance and the commitment to examine the entire range of defense across all components and aspects, a revolution is possible. If Rapid Dominance can be harnessed in an affordable and efficient way and an operational capability fielded to impose sufficient Shock and Awe to affect an adversary's will, then this will be the real Revolution in Military Affairs. We ask those who are intrigued by this prospect to join us.
Thoughts on Rapid Dominance by Admiral Bud Edney, USN (Ret.)
Why the need for a concept of Rapid Dominance? The answer lies in the combined realities of modern technology, economics, and politics.
The evolution or revolution of information technology is impacting everything we do and how we do it on a worldwide basis. The far-reaching effects of the resulting information highway that crosses all boundaries are already impacting the strategic decisions, economics, and politics of the world of nation states. Borders are no defense for the penetration of information even in highly controlled or authoritarian societies. Similarly, the exploration and use of high technology in space, together with the advent of sophisticated highly accurate ballistic and cruise missiles, means borders between states are not as important for strategic and impenetrable defenses in depth as they used to be. The rapid advancements in telecommunications technology, combined with the exploration and use of space vehicles to saturate a world hungry for information, means that leaders can no longer shield their people from the outside world. Thus information will penetrate whatever curtain or wall that is erected in a futile attempt to block it out. New centers of gravity are being created as are new vulnerability choke points. The country or power structure that harnesses the capabilities and dimensions of the information revolution as it applies to issues of national security will remain in control of its own destiny. The United States possesses a qualitative and quantitative lead that, when combined with a properly focused and coordinated (harmonized) industry, defense, and national security policy, should ensure success for the foreseeable future. Harnessing information technology and applying it to new strategic and doctrinal thought in application of military force is the essence of Rapid Dominance.
With the end of the Cold War and the dismantling of the Soviet Union, there is no major power capable of destroying the U.S. mainland. Given this absence of devastating threat, defense expenditures will continue to be squeezed to address more pressing domestic priorities. Voter demands for a balanced budget, national health care, social security reform, educational reform, family values, crime and drug use reduction, lower taxes, etc., will combine to put increasing pressure on the defense bottom line in the out years. The result will be a steady decline in war fighting readiness and force structure that will place our security interests at risk unless we leverage our technology leadership to achieve military advantage with lower force levels but increased war fighting effectiveness. This is also the essence of Rapid Dominance.
The reality of current politics is that the trauma of Vietnam, the results of the Gulf War, and our status as the only remaining superpower after the Cold War equate to some new constraints (real or perceived) on the application of military force to support our foreign policy. These political sensitivities need to be understood up front and include the following:
- The U.S. is not the world's policeman - Involvement of U.S. Forces must be justified as essential to vital U.S. security interests - Support of Congress and People is a necessary prerequisite - Avoid commitment of ground forces - Offer instead U.S. intelligence, air lift, sea lift, logistics support, etc. - Avoid risk of loss of U.S. lives at almost all costs - Ensure decisive force applied for mission assigned - Rules of Engagement allow U.S. forces to defend themselves aggressively - Minimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage - Specify achievable mission objectives up front with an end in the not-too-distant future sight before committing - U.S. led coalition force preferred-U.S. Forces remain under U.S. Command. These political restraints may limit the application of Rapid Dominance to Major and Minor Regional Conflicts. This is an issue that needs further exploration and analysis.
What is Rapid Dominance?
Rapid Dominance is the full use of capabilities within a system of systems that can decisively impact events requiring the application of military/defense resources through affecting the adversary's will. Rapid Dominance envisions execution in real or near real time to counter actions or intentions deemed detrimental to U.S. interests. On one end of the spectrum, Rapid Dominance would introduce a regime of Shock and Awe in areas of high value to the threatening individual, group, or state. In many cases the prior knowledge of credible U.S. Rapid Dominance capabilities would act as a deterrent. Rapid Dominance would ensure favorable early resolution of issues at minimal loss of lives and collateral damage. The concept ideally should be able to impact adversarial situations that apply across the board, addressing high-, mid-, low-, and no-technology threats. Some of these aims may not be achievable given the political and technology constraints, but need to be explored.
Rapid Dominance expands the art of joint combined arms war fighting capabilities to a new level. Rapid Dominance requires a sophisticated, interconnected, and interoperable grid of netted intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, communications systems, and data analysis to deliver in real time, actionable information to the shooter. This network must provide total situational awareness and nodal analysis that enables U.S. forces to act inside the adversary's decision loop in a manner that on the high end produces Shock and Awe among the threat parties. Properly detailed nodal analysis of this grid of knowledge and vulnerability will enable the shutting down of specific or all essential functions nearly simultaneously. We expect that through these netted pieces of data, often, the sum of the parts will yield profound battlefield advantages to the possessor. The "Rapid" part of the equation becomes the ability to get real time actionable targeting information to the shooter, whether the shooter is a tank division, an individual tank, an artillery battery, an individual rifleman, a naval battle group, an individual ship, an air wing/squadron, or an aircraft in flight. At whatever unit level, Shock and Awe are magnified by the speed and effectiveness of targeting. The ability to achieve Rapid Dominance simultaneously throughout the battlefield will create strategic Shock and Awe on the opposing forces, their leadership, and society. When the video results of these attacks are broadcast real time worldwide on CNN, the positive impact on coalition support and negative impact on potential threat support can be decisive.
The top priority of Rapid Dominance should be to deter, alter, or affect those actions that are either unacceptable to U.S. national security interests or endanger the democratic community of states and access to free markets. These political objectives are generally those envisioned in the major and lesser regional conflict scenarios (MRC & LRC). Should deterrence fail, the application of Rapid Dominance should create sufficient Shock and Awe to intimidate the enemy forces and leadership as well as provide a clear message for other potential aggressors. Rapid Dominance would not be limited to MRC and LRC scenarios. It has application in a variety of areas, including countering WMD, terrorism, and other political problems. The challenge is that should deterrence fail, the execution of a response based on Rapid Dominance must be proportional to the threat yet decisive enough to convey the appropriate degree of Shock and Awe. Rapid Dominance cannot solve all or even most of the world's problems. It initially appears that Rapid Dominance should be applied sparingly for egregious threats or violations of international law, such as:
- Blatant aggression involving a large state crushing a small state - Rogue leader/state sponsored terrorism/use of WMD - Egregious violations of human rights on a large scale - Threat to essential world markets
Clearly the Information Highway is crossing all sovereign borders and penetrating even the most closed societies. The inequities and benefits in closed societies are becoming known to both the public as well as the bosses. The requirement for Rapid Dominance to develop sophisticated capabilities to penetrate the Information Highway and create road blocks as well as control input/outputs to the highway both overtly and covertly is fundamental to the concept.
These same techniques also apply to law enforcement agencies targeting international crime and drug cartels using the highway. Closer interagency cooperation and coordination between military and law enforcement activities and capabilities must be established. Experience with the military involvement in the drug war revealed considerable cultural differences between these organizations. Overcoming these cultural differences is not easy. The required trust and confidence for sharing sensitive information and support between these agencies and the military needs to be developed further. Interagency coordination and cooperation must be raised to a new level of sophistication. Some laws may need to be changed. War in Cyberspace does not recognize domestic versus foreign boundaries. In this environment the subjects of Information Warfare and Information In Warfare take on new meaning and require focused development. We must become proficient within this environment.
This breakdown of traditional boundaries requires a great deal more thought with regard to the issues of security, vulnerabilities (their's and our's), and the concept of Rapid Dominance. Does Rapid Dominance apply only or mostly to the high end of the spectrum, involving more traditional applications of force to achieve political objectives as envisioned in the MRC and LRC scenarios? Yet to be explored is the degree to which a concept of Rapid Dominance applies to OOTW, countering terrorism against U.S. interests, controlling rogue states/leaders, etc. What are the political and military prerequisites to apply Rapid Dominance? Are they applicable and realistically achievable in the increasingly complex interaction of national governments/law enforcement organizations and international as well as local private venture or non-government organizations (PVOs/NGOs) present worldwide to provide health and humanitarian care to refugees and other disenfranchised people? Would the concept of Rapid Dominance offend and generate a counterproductive public relations backlash from those who believe force should only be used as a last resort and then with a measurable degree of proportionality?
At this point, one can only raise these types of issues to be addressed at a later date. This line of questions, concerns, and issues, as well as a host of others, needs to be raised up front during the concept development phase of the development of specific Mission Capability Package concepts. We must be careful that we do not overvisualize Rapid Dominance versus the reality of credible/affordable capabilities to execute the concept. Rapid Dominance does not eliminate the fog of war. Decisions will still be made on the leader's judgment and confidence in the intelligence provided, the estimate of threat intentions, knowledge of true center of gravity targets, and confidence in our own force capabilities to inflict Shock and Awe. In fact, the ability to penetrate this fog is the key to Rapid Dominance. Complicating the issue is the fact that the U.S. has not clearly defined its role in the post-Cold War era. As the world's only credible superpower, the U.S. can not avoid a leadership role, but neither can it avoid the focused criticism applied to all leaders. We are in the classical "damned if we do and damned if we don't" syndrome. One of the serious side effects of Rapid Dominance could be that if you adapt a strategy of Rapid Dominance and succeed, you may now own the problem and be responsible for the solution. Do we know the funding tail to such a policy and are we as a nation ready to accept this cost when/if Rapid Dominance is applied in situations that are less than of vital interest? This subject needs further development beyond the limitations of this book.
Rapid Dominance and The Future Battlefield
What will the battlefield of the future really look like? The Desert Storm conflict indicated to many who analyzed it that the real focus of battle will no longer be force on force as we have traditionally considered it. By the time the Allied Forces engaged the opposing Iraq forces, the enemy force for all practical purposes had already been demoralized and smashed. This was accomplished by establishing air superiority followed by a carefully orchestrated campaign of precision air strikes (including Tomahawk missiles). The Iraqi ground forces were isolated by cutting off logistic support, severing communications with its leadership, and stinging them with the Shock and Awe achieved by B-52 strikes on the entrenched Iraqi forces in the open desert. Shock and awe were introduced in the manner that stealth aircraft penetrated enemy air defenses and surgically attacked center of gravity targets with impunity. Shock and awe were also present in the degree that coalition forces owned the night and could rapidly maneuver large units in terrain thought to be foreign, imposing, and unforgiving for the predominantly U.S. forces. Instead, as Colin Powell noted, the Coalition Forces cut off the head and life lines to the Iraqi Army in the field and then set about killing it. The fact that a democratically led coalition could choose not to massacre the remnants of Iraq's army during its panic-induced retreat underscores that we knew how much power we had and could employ restraint. The impact of real-time video media coverage of these events, beamed simultaneously into government headquarters and civilian living rooms worldwide, is a phenomenon that impacted events on the battlefield and further highlighted the compassion of that decision. In dealing with a "butcher" we could not fall to that level.
The battlefield of the future will not be a neat 200x200 mile box where you will know everything that is going on inside the box (although that would be an extremely helpful first step). The battlefield of the future will encompass every pressure point that controls or influences the elements of the battle. In examining this battlefield and the application of force and Shock and Awe, we seek to mass devastatingly accurate and simultaneous firepower on critical nodes/targets that count for the mission at hand, rather than necessarily having to mass large armies in the field to engage one another. Clearly, the Gulf War raised warfare to a new level with the demonstrated effectiveness and application of air to ground/water and surface to ground/water launched precision guided weapons. No longer will commanders count sorties and tonnage of ordnance dropped, but rather targets destroyed per sortie! Note: there may well be an issue of affordability here. We may not be able to get 1) high tech, 2) MRC/OOTW, and 3) large armies. This does not eliminate the requirement for sufficient force in the field to defend against an all-out assault or eject another force and occupy the contested land to ensure the objectives of conflict are carried out. Air power can punish, simultaneously destroy center of gravity targets, and so demoralize the opposing forces that land campaign objectives can be achieved with smaller forces. In some cases, the Shock and Awe achieved by the air campaign may result in an early cessation of conflict before the land campaign is necessary. This is more likely against a modernized, developed state than an underdeveloped government.
The confluence of several technologies, including all aspects of stealth aircraft, satellite global positioning, improved weapon targeting and terminal guidance, cruise missile technology, space relayed command & control, real-time surveillance from space, the introduction of JSTARS, and massive application of night vision techniques, are the first phase of these changes. With elements of this technology now more and more on the open market to whomever has the cash or friends, the advantage of obtaining greater situational awareness and real-time processing of available data cannot be taken for granted.
In future environments, and short of all-out war, it is clear that political and military decision making will have to establish close control of the actionable information distributed to shooters in the field. It is legitimate to ask why Israeli forces that had air superiority, UAV surveillance, and extremely accurate firepower capabilities in the most recent incursion into Southern Lebanon against Hezbolla terrorist attacks had to respond with an artillery barrage to one Kaytusha rocket fired from close to a known UN encampment. When this artillery response resulted in killing more than 100 refugees fleeing the Israeli operation, the result was a public relations disaster and mission failure for the stated limited Israeli objectives. This represents a case of ill-conceived application of Rapid Dominance that resulted in counter-productive Shock and Awe generating adverse public opinion focused against Israel. This was also a case of applying high technology and state controlled Rapid Dominance against a low-technology guerrilla warfare force. Clearly the Hezbolla appeared to win more than they lost in this exchange. The lessons learned from this tragic incident as well as the applicability of Rapid Dominance techniques in this environment need further study. The massing and movement of refugees in large numbers is a reality and a planning factor that must be dealt with up front. The fact that the value of life itself is viewed differently by warring factions must also be considered. If one side willingly uses refugees as a shield and the other is trying to protect their lives, then operations to achieve Rapid Dominance require clear (and perhaps restrictive) rules of engagement in the field. The rapidity of response may not always be the right tactic and an escalation of targeting different centers of gravity rather than responding directly to events in the field promises to be more effective. The theory of Rapid Dominance clearly needs further development, gaming, and simulation. Each decision to apply Rapid Dominance will be unique, complex, risky, and different than the previous one. Knowledge and information on the battlefield as well as that concerning center of gravity targets will be incomplete even with a goal of total situational awareness.
Instruments to Achieve Shock and Awe
Shock and awe are actions that create fears, dangers, and destruction that are incompre-hensible to the people at large, specific elements/sectors of the threat society, or the leadership. Nature in the form of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, uncontrolled fires, famine, and disease can engender Shock and Awe. The ultimate military application of Shock and Awe was the use of two atomic weapons against Japan in WWII. The Shock and Awe that resulted from the use of these weapons not only brought an abrupt end to the war with Japan (through unconditional surrender), but have deterred the further use of these weapons for over 50 years. Not unexpectedly, these events did not stop the proliferation or increase in the destructive power of these weapons by a factor of ten. The holocaust was a state policy of Shock and Awe that stunned the world in its brutality and inhumanity. Yet it has not deterred the world from executing or tolerating atrocities of equal brutality and inhumanity (Cambodia, Syria, Rwanda, etc.). Similar applications of Shock and Awe have differing toleration levels and impacts depending on the environment and political system against which it is applied. As an example, the massive bombing raids of WWII by Germany and the U.S. did not result in a sufficient level of Shock and Awe to end the fighting. The fear of the unknown created by the atomic attacks rather than their actual destruction was the deciding factor in that theater. The B-52 raids in Vietnam provided localized elements of Shock and Awe, but until applied to the capital city of Hanoi, had no impact toward war termination. When applied in concentrated repetitive strikes in November/December of 1972 under Operation Rolling Thunder III, the cease fire followed in short order. In fact, throughout history there have been weapons and tactics designed to create varying degrees of Shock and Awe. While there has always been shock, awe, and fear associated with warfare, unless the fear or losses are focused and great enough, a quick cessation of hostilities under favorable terms is not certain. How to apply elements of Shock and Awe against rogue states, terrorist elements, international drug and crime cartels, as well as in the more traditional MRCs and LRCs needs much further study and analysis. Shock and awe, to reach the level required to achieve Rapid Dominance, must also bring fear to those who are in charge. It must be applied quickly, decisively, and preferably with impunity (such as stealth bombing with air superiority). The element of impunity, that is the other side is powerless to stop the damage, is a key element of this strategy. If on the other hand attacks are directed at the general public a backlash could be unleased because of the excessive and brutal losses of innocent civilians.
Much more study and analysis is needed to identify and examine the pros and cons of a policy that initiates a doctrine of Shock and Awe for limited objectives rather than responds in kind to a provocation. What are the limits of the doctrine of Shock and Awe? What circumstances merit the application? Can Shock and Awe be used to achieve limited objectives with little or no risk of life to allied forces or innocent civilians? Can true center of gravity targets be identified for ideological/terrorist groups? Can levels of Shock and Awe be categorized by effectiveness and priority of weapons systems? If so, what are the key enabling technologies? What types of Shock and Awe would be both impressive and generate high returns? A few desirable capabilities from a former CINC's perspective are listed below:
- Blow up an entire mine field simultaneously in its entirety immediately after it had been laid. - Destroy the mine laden mine-laying vehicles at their loading point. - Destroy in real time terrorist training camps or publicity generating threats such as the recent display of 70 bomb laden suicide terrorists pledging to wreak havoc worldwide. (This probably requires inside penetration of the targeted organization). - Destroy simultaneously all/selective WMD launchers, storage/production facilities of a rogue state. - Selectively target rogue terrorist leaders as was apparently done by the Russians in Chechnya recently when they killed the top rebel leader by detecting and homing in on his satellite phone conversation (helicopter rocket attack). - Stop, divert, capture the cash flow to terrorist elements.
Thoughts on Applications of Shock and Awe
It is the use of Shock and Awe to achieve Rapid Dominance that is so fascinating and has the greatest potential for leverage if it can be harnessed in a variety of situations. This basis for Rapid Dominance requires a clearer under-standing of what our end objectives are than we usually have when we stumble into the use of military force, often it seems by default and at the last possible minute. At this point, I have more questions than answers. How does Rapid Dominance differ by the goals and missions assigned? What are the key elements to apply Rapid Dominance for each envisioned threat? What are the most likely threats for the next 20 years? Is Rapid Dominance applicable to all these threats? Can we separate Rapid Dominance into categories with and without Shock and Awe?
In addition to answering these and other questions, it seems to me it would be helpful to generate a list of desirable capabilities that would help me select a response option. This list of capabilities would be useful to focus (1) scarce R&D dollars to fill in the holes with technology, (2) intelligence and surveillance collection priorities, (3) innovative thought to further develop the concept (War College papers and Wargaming series), and (4) development of CINC plans and requirements to meet these capabilities. Examples of such capabilities are:
- Deploying highly effective TBMD and Cruise Missile Defense. - Severing all/selective communications between leadership and field as well as selective elements by call in the field. - Intercepting and transmitting revised orders to selective threat field units. - Projecting false radar pictures on selective key threat scopes. - Inserting fouled fuel in threat storage facilities that generates engine failures. - Inserting metal/material fatigue to failure attachments on key threat systems. - Identifying specific location and determining strength and material of protected targets of value. - Developing dial a setting ordnance capable of destroying all hardened targets. - Detecting and tracting (destroying at will) all targets of value including mobile targets. - Detecting and targeting key threat launch systems before launch. - Detecting plot and simultaneously destroying an employed mine field (land & sea). - Making threat submarine movements transparent to targeting at will.
Obviously, such a wish list should be prioritized and tailored to the limits of achievable near/mid-term technology and affordability. This may not even be the right type of capabilities one might want. That is, we may need a totally non-standard list. My judgment is that we should develop one or two black "silver bullet" capabilities, if we get too far afield, the system will not be able to digest the recommendations. However, the concept of Rapid Dominance requires stepping to a new level of getting inside the opposition's decision loop. Rapid Dominance at the ultimate level would enable stopping, diverting, or changing the decision process and decision executing machinery/systems either preemptively or reactively in time to ensure core U.S. security requirements are met.
Rapid Dominance Infrastructure
The current direction and speed of downsizing and acquisition reform is adequate for the type of forces and capabilities necessary to implement a Rapid Dominance strategy. I would like to reserve comments in this area until the project is further developed. We do not need to raise reasons to discard the concept as too hard before it is sufficiently defined. I have the feeling that bringing these conceptual capabilities to realities within a system of systems is neither cheap nor easy. There is still too much waste and inefficiency in our defense acquisition process as well as in the overlap between service requirements and capabilities. Rapid Dominance will not be service-unique and requires a synergistic approach from planning to execution.
The implications of the ongoing revolution in telecommunications and information processing as it applies to our national security interests dictate that we need new imaginative concepts of operation to ensure the efficacy of our international leadership in a multipolar world. With technology upgrading capabilities by factors of 10 or more every 18 months, we can no longer afford to have concepts of operations wait for the technology to reach the field. The concept of Rapid Dominance requires innovative thought and different directions than that imbedded in our military hierarchy. We need to introduce the concept at all levels of military professional education and training. The best results of this effort will be generated from the younger minds brought up on the leading edge of the information revolution. The challenge is to engage those minds in the solution and to take the risks required to fund priorities enabling the development of this capability now. Such a cultural change is not easy. One thing is certain-business as usual will not get us there. The window of opportunity will close faster than we think.
Defense Alternatives: Forces Required by General Chuck Horner, USAF (Ret.)
The end of the Cold War will require a review of United States National Security Policy and a concomitant change in our National Defense Strategy. This strategy will respond to the changes in the world's security environment, including the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, the evolution in U.S. security alliances such as NATO and NORAD, the increased and unique threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the widening of the spectrum of conflict which will challenge the peace and security of our nation and its allies.
The causes of conflict and the modes which threats to our security interests will take have multiplied with the end of the Cold War. The nuclear weapons of the Cold War remain and will remain for some considerable time, even though there is a growing appreciation as to the declining utility of these devices. For sure there will be continuing pressure throughout the world to eliminate the presence of nuclear weapons in conjunction with efforts to halt the production, stockpiling, and deployment of chemical and biological weapons. It is likely that START II will be followed by START III and IV, as nations who claim ownership of nuclear weapons realize ownership has a high cost and marginal payoff. However, progress will be slow due to the immense importance of achieving symmetry during nuclear disarmament and the cumbersome and exacting safeguards associated with the disarmament process. Therefore, for the foreseeable future the threat of nuclear war must be addressed even though it will be less likely than before. The spectrum of national security challenges will expand as the threat of nuclear annihilation subsides.
The decisive victory achieved by the coalition forces over Iraq during Desert Storm should give future aggressors of major regional conflict cause to pause. While this does not mean that the threat of conventional warfare has vanished, it does mean that the national leader intending to use major conflict to achieve political aims must carefully craft strategy that will avoid the opportunity for confrontation with a large coalition force lead by the United States. Such a strategy might include surprise attack; short intense military action; the threat or use of nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons; advanced surveillance measures and precision munitions; and warfare carried out on a fragmented battlefield which includes attacks on the capitals of other nations by means of ballistic missiles or unconventional warfare forces. This will be warfare for which the United States is ill trained and ill equipped.
Other challenges to the world's security will take many forms to which the military forces of the United States can play a constructive role. These are commonly referred to as Operations Other Than War, even though they may include the use of force to achieve desired political goals. They include the increasingly familiar peacemaking, peacekeeping, show of force, and humanitarian relief efforts. Success in these operations may well require retraining, re-equipping, or reorganizing our military forces. Each mission should be evaluated with respect to what is required to accomplish its unique challenges. However, the basic doctrine, training, or equipage of the military forces should be based on what is required to fight the residual Cold War, as well as deal with the growing demands of a major regional conflict.
The political goals upon which our national security strategy should be crafted are fairly straightforward. First, we should seek to preserve and invigorate the role of leadership the United States has maintained since the end of World War II, or the end of the Cold War (you take your pick). Second, and not apart from the first goal, the United States must be sufficiently strong to prevent or deter use of effective military power against us. It is not inconceivable that our so-called superpower status could be defeated in battle by a crafty and well-prepared adversary. Witness what happened to the powerful victors of WWII in Vietnam. Third, U.S. military forces must be of sufficient size, configuration, and readiness to bring a major conventional conflict to a successful termination. It goes without saying that during this process we need to reduce nuclear weapons to numbers that do not threaten the virtual destruction of the world. Nuclear deterrence forces also must remain in place. Fourth and lastly, our military forces must be capable of responding to all the other tasks and functions for which the national command authority calls upon the military. This first of challenges should be used to define the military forces we field, how we train them, and the methods we use to employ them.
The strategic geographic depth the United States enjoys, bounded by two oceans on the east and west and non-threatening nations to the north and south, means that our nation is somewhat immune from attack, other than by means of infiltration such as a terrorist, or from the skies by means of long-range aircraft, and cruise or ballistic missiles. We will require some actions and defenses which address these threats, but the major portion of our national defense effort must be placed on building and sustaining offensive forces for combat in environments other than our own soil. This dictates that our projection forces must be capable of rapidly responding to an unforeseen crisis anywhere in the world, keeping in mind that quick, decisive surprise favors our potential enemies. Given that we have proven unable to predict the outbreak of conflict in the past, these forces must also be ready at all times to carry out combat operations in most any place. There will not be time to modernize their equipment or train reserve force units. They must be capable of projecting and sustaining their military power over long distances and operating in the environment of the enemy's choosing. Last but not least, when required, they must be capable of decisive combat, not by attrition of the enemy force in head-to-head combat as was our nature in past wars, but by Shock and Awe so that conflict resolution is achieved with a maximum of success at the minimum loss of life in the shortest time. These characteristics for our projection force cannot be achieved easily, as the processes that defined our Cold War doctrines, force structures, equipment, and ways of doing business are loath to change.
The Services' and joint requirements oversight processes that define the equipment provided our military forces place emphasis on force structure and the traditional roles for those forces. This inertia can freeze our land, sea, air, and space capabilities at current or near current levels, but may prove inadequate to carry out new strategies. There are few incentives for a Service or the Joint Staff to reward innovation or divestiture of roles or missions in order to change the character and mix of land, sea, air, and space forces and to prepare them to fight the battles we must envisage for the twenty-first century.
For example, the Services claim lessons learned from Desert Storm which reinforce late twentieth century ways of fighting and ignore the troublesome aspects which loom in the future and threaten our traditional view of the battlefield. Many acclaim the role of precision weapons for our forces, but ignore the threat they pose if they are in the hands of the enemy. What would be the lessons learned if several hundred canisters of live Sensor Fused Weapons were released by a red force ballistic missile on the 24th Division during a Fort Irwin engagement? Certainly there would be profound changes in tactics, doctrine, and equipment indicated for the surviving U.S. Army force. What if radar homing Surface to Air Missiles were employed by the red force during a Red Flag exercise in the Nevada desert, not using centralized Soviet tactics/doctrine, but instead using decentralized yet cooperative engagement operations as would be used by our best and brightest if unleashed from their stagnant doctrines? I doubt that the Air Force would be spending millions of dollars trying to build electronic countermeasures to hide the large number of expensive and very non-stealthy aircraft they continue to build, such as the F-15E.
Imagine the shock on our populace if a single cruise missile were actually allowed to score a direct hit on the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier during a Solid Shield joint exercise with the attendant loss of life numbering in the 4,000 to 5,000 range. You would think the maritime force would reexamine the method it provides air power from the sea, vital yet today too vulnerable.
How many times do we hear that the space forces are configured to provide intelligence from overhead only to find in Iraq or Bosnia that the front line forces receive products that are old, inaccurate and altered to keep our Soviet foes from gaining knowledge of our capabilities? Perhaps we if we would dual hat the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to the position of J-2, or even Commander-in-Chief of a regional unified command, there would be vast improvements in the tasking, evaluation, and delivery of space-derived intelligence to regional combat forces. Then we might see full understanding of the increasing role of space forces and implement change to make them more relevant to our national security strategies of the next century. Innovation, not size, must be sought because we do not have the resources to do both. Moreover, large forces drive our operational level strategy to force-on-force engagements in the attrition warfare model of the last century with its attendant causalities and destruction of equipment. George Patton's dictum still stands that directed his troops not to die for their country, but to get the other SOB to die for his.
Military operations will also place less emphasis on dying and destruction. The ever-present television camera ensures that the horrors of war are broadcast worldwide. War's immorality should some day lead to its banishment. Unfortunately, that day is probably a long way away. Nonetheless, weapons of war and their employment tactics must minimize death and destruction. This is not a call for non-lethal weapons; it is a call for military forces to get right to the heart of the enemy and conclude operations as rapidly and efficiently as they possibly can given their equipment, training, and doctrine. This means there must be wide flexibility in how they may function. Military operations will be across a wide spectrum of warfare and will demand flexibility. Modern war will require our military leadership to navigate through a changing spectrum of political constraints and ever changing political goals as each scenario unfolds. We must make our forces capable of dampening the capacity of the enemy to use force by controlling the conflict rapidly even when surprised. We failed to do that tactically in Desert Storm in the case of the SCUD missile attacks, but were fortunate that the Iraqis were equally inept at taking political advantage of this card they held and skillfully employed on the battlefield. We must also look for efficiency before we even join in battle.
Defense spending has declined as a percent of federal outlays since the end of the Cold War. Given the leadership role the United States plays in the world, one could think a reasonable sum to devote to defense might be three percent of our gross national product, certainly an amount much smaller than what an average family expends for its security by means of life, health, causality, car, medical insurance, and retirement benefits. Given the prospect of long-term, constant funding, the Department of Defense could then give more thought to how to build the most modern, efficient military force within the dollars available. We would no longer define our forces against some mythical threat or scenario which generates impetus to protect force size rather than quality. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and space forces would be required to build a team based on a salary cap. You might be willing to pay big bucks for a B-2 superstar quarterback, but you will also need lower cost and capable riflemen or destroyers to block and tackle. Most of all, you would reward the Service or Agency who would innovate to provide efficiency.
Manpower has become the driving cost in the all-volunteer military force. Investment cost of a ship, tank, aircraft or satellite might be high, but it is the operations and maintenance costs that will drive how much resources we are required to expend to gain and maintain a given military capability. Again turning to Desert Storm, the huge advantages of overflight precision munitions dropped from stealth aircraft has not been understood or accepted by the operations analysts who argue what we should build or buy next. If it had been, would the Navy have allowed the A-12 program to fail, would the Air Force be pouring hundreds of millions if not eventually billions of dollars into equipping forty year old B-52s with conventional missiles, or would the Army be maintaining heavy divisions at a personal cost of $60 billion for 35 years of ownership? Why not build a Division force equivalent using technology and doctrine to provide a "heavy division equivalent" force using far fewer troops featuring speed, shock, precision fire while avoiding the manpower costs of dollars that in peacetime include added costs for recruitment, training, and sustaining and in war have an even greater added cost computed in blood? Why don't we do this? The answer is because it would require rare innovation, trust, and support from the equally intransigent federal funding authorities. Most importantly, the Services are not rewarded for innovation which recognizes the contributions of another Service or Ally.
Jointness has become an altar at which all military personnel must worship even if they don't understand or believe. Defenders of the status quo argue that there is merit in duplication or redundancy and these arguments have some validity. The question becomes how much overlap or redundancy between land, sea, air, and space forces can the nation afford, and what is the opportunity cost to the core competency of the land, sea, air, or space force that builds and/or maintains the duplicative force structure. A second yet vastly different question arises when considering the unique capabilities a Service provides to support itself and the other services. For example, how much the Air Force should spend on airlift forces is not cast in terms of what the envisaged requirement is for airlift, ton miles per day, to support the mythical scenarios. The alternative sea, land, and space lift requirements can be postulated; however, if the Navy, Army, or Air Force do not satisfy those sea, land, and space lift requirement, then there is a shortfall which will in turn generate a need for more airlift!
During Desert Storm, nearly 90 percent of the deployed equipment arrived by sea, but not in time if the Iraqis had continued their first attack in August. A majority of overland movement was provided by Saudi Arabian civilian trucks and drivers, and the Army had neither the resources nor the responsiveness to activate reserve forces needed to meet the truck and rail support requirements of our military forces. As a result, costly airlift was used to move forces that should have traveled by land and sea. If added space capabilities had been needed, there was almost no capability for the timely launch of a satellite. Would it not be wise to index spending on land, sea, air, and space launch on one and other, postulate lift requirements on what the new force needs as it innovates and slims down. The need to respond on a moment's notice adds to the value of airlift and prepositioned ships. The outcome though would be not to allow any of the Services to divert general support money into core competencies and thereby shift the jointness burden to another Service.
Innovate. Use the carrier to haul the army to war, and then fly the fighters aboard after the helicopters or tanks are unloaded. Accept the benefits of Federal Express that can be federalized during times of national emergency as a costly, but ready augmentation to military supply lines that has no cost during the much longer periods of peacetime. Our nation has other industrial capacities that also have duplicate military capabilities. They may be 80 percent solutions, but the cost of ownership could prohibit creation and maintenance of a military owned and operated 100 percent solution. Iridium telephones may not be jam-resistant or secure, but 80 percent of the time they will satisfy the need for 2 percent of the cost. Of course, this avoids the problem we have created for ourselves with our medieval acquisition system.
Finally, we must acquire hardware of a type and at a pace that will assure the future force capability will be enduring. We cannot keep up with technology using our current ways of acquiring military hardware and training our people in how to use and maintain it. In many areas we would be better off to throw it away when it breaks given the low cost, durability, and reliability of modern solid state electronics. Why train technicians? Give the troops a gold card and a telephone number and they know how to spend money more efficiently than do our government agencies. Make sure the equipment we do buy not only integrates with that of other services and functions, but that it can integrate with both older and newer equipment designated to do the same function. The fighter aircraft secure radio must be capable of communicating with the ground and sea based forces command and control, as importantly it must be able to communicate with the next generation fighter aircraft radio.
The added dimension is the realization that we are unlikely to fight alone in the future. We gain valuable legitimacy from forming coalitions, plus it makes up for the growing feeble force structure we maintain in declining budget years. An enduring force must also recognize the necessity to operate cooperatively with the forces of other nations. This means we must more freely release our technologies to foreign nations so that our military forces can fight side by side, so that our deployment forces can draw from stocks of others while our logistics system seeks to catch up with the rapidly deployed combat force.
In the final analysis, all of this shaping and sharpening of our military forces will be for naught if there is not an equal change in the policy side of the equation. What good are highly trained, efficient, capable land, sea, air, and space forces if the implementing authorities are incapable of defining principles, goals, and integrating strategies for their employment? While this is not the province of the military to solve, the military must understand how disjointed policy, weak political leadership, or dysfunctional international cooperation will preclude success on the battlefield.
Again, one of the missed lessons of Desert Storm was the difficult and successful integration of international leadership achieved by the President, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congressional leaders, and allied National Command Authorities as well as many others. It was this leadership, coupled with the ineptness of the enemy, that covered over the failures of our Cold War-equipped and trained forces that fought Desert Storm. This does not take anything away from the military victory, but it does make it difficult to glean the right lessons for the future. Perhaps that is why we are so loathe to change our forces at a time when change is demanded by a new strategic environment and new threats to our national security. Defining alternative forces in light of the changed national security environment, goals and strategy raises two questions: what kind or mix of military force and how much best balances the requirements and funds available.
Deep Strike: A Key to Shock and Awe
In the world of surprise attack and withdrawal from foreign bases, all initial responses to combat operations will be some form of deep strike. Given strategic warning (don't bet on it) after deployment of our military forces, Deep Strike is a term that relates to the political boundaries or proximity to military forces. The geography of the area of conflict will further define deep strike. But a rule of thumb might be attacks on a target beyond range of surface-based fires except for ballistic or cruise missiles. More important than range is the characteristics of the Deep Strike targets. Deep Strike targets could be classified as ones the enemy does not wish to place at high levels of risk. They can be characterized by the functions they perform, such as:
- Leadership - Command and Control (a function of leadership) - Control of Military Forces, especially air and space - Logistics and Sustainment - National Economic Base - Internal Security/Political - National Will, Theirs and Ours
Intelligence used to nominate the targets for these strikes must examine the functions and then define the physical objects or people who comprise the system which is responsible for the successful operation of the function. You define the system and then attack the critical elements in order to achieve economy of force. Often these target sets are difficult to define, as these functions often represent the enemy's most valuable and therefore protected elements. The intelligence collection associated with each function will vary from target set to target set. Large, fixed infrastructure, such as associated with an electrical grid, lends itself to traditional reconnaissance and evaluation of technical analysis. Leadership targets are better defined by using human intelligence and subjective analysis. In all cases success starts with innovative intelligence products, which has not been a hallmark of United States operations. Such intelligence products must be examined through the eyes of the enemy, their values and concerns. Too often we apply judgments based on our viewpoint.
One target system may serve the attainment of a number of different goals. For example, attacks on the electrical power system of the enemy may debilitate his capacity to command and control his military forces, operate vital elements of the economy and thus degrade the political support required to sustain the conflict. This same target system may be attacked a variety of ways. Most common methods would be using stealth aircraft and cruise missiles to bomb power plants and switching centers. Areas with isolated populations lend themselves to using special operations forces infiltrated to destroy an isolated power grid node for transmission of energy from one highly populated area to another. Now it is obvious that computer signals used to command the power grid are targets as intrusion into the enemy's control system provides the means to simply turn off electricity to selected areas. Attacks by all these means achieves even greater results than the sum of its parts because enemy responses to restore electrical power will be confused as elements such as computer intrusion are confused with bombing destruction.
The characteristics of value in attacking these important targets systems are simultaneity, impunity, and timing. The greatest effect will be achieved when the strikes are coordinated in such a manner as to inflict maximum Shock and Awe on the enemy element. This means operations must be coordinated and orchestrated carefully and flexibly as enemy reaction to the attack is evaluated. Moreover, presence is projected when a combination of functions or target sets supporting a variety of functions are struck at the same time with impunity. In order to achieve maximum results, the attacks will need to be evaluated quickly in order to define previously unknown elements of the system or how the enemy perceives the impact on his system. Finally, the attacker must be alert as to the interaction of the functions as the effects of these Deep Strikes begin to take hold. In order to achieve desired levels of Shock and Awe, the attacker must know the current and projected effects of his strikes against elements of the enemy's residual system. If the trick is to define the system of targets needed to conduct successful Deep Strike, it is even more important to know how to alter the initial plan as the battle unfolds and timing becomes everything.
The characteristics of forces needed to carry out Deep Strike are long range, flexibility, precision, survivability, and speed. Cost of the operation is a factor; however, system cost must include peacetime operations and maintenance costs as well of the costs during actual combat. There is also a human element in the cost of combat operations which escalates rapidly as military force is misused. The total cost of these operations must also address the cost of intelligence used to support Deep Strikes. Intelligence operations may be the most costly due to the importance of these targets to the enemy. Alternatively, the human intelligence associated with these attacks may be the most inexpensive since their national importance makes them vulnerable to knowl-edgeable dissidents.
Deep Strike is defined by distance, albeit relative distance. Some of the target sets may lend themselves to circumstances beyond the nation's control; for example, Seoul borders on North Korea. Our protective oceans mean that likely conflict is offshore. The likelihood our next adversary may have access to surveillance, precision munitions, and long-range delivery systems dictates that much of our operations will be at long range, lest our forces come under attack at their ports, camps, and bases. There will be a need for systems capable of projecting military force from distances of 10,000KM. A sizable portion of the force must be able to deliver ordnance of enemy targets from ranges in excess of 5,000KM. Launching attacks from inside 1,000KM of the enemy forces will demand that friendly forces be protected from attack by means of active and passive defenses and dispersal. This latter constraint will preclude achieving levels of Shock and Awe through simultaneous attack.
Great cost benefits are attained if the vehicle used to deliver the attack is reusable. Keep in mind that the force built for the most demanding conflict must also be flexible for other operations. Therefore, while ballistic missiles provide great range, speed, and survivability in reaching their target, their cost become prohibitive in large-scale operations which endure beyond a few hours, or in smaller-scale operations where the goals are modest and the demands on other military forces are low. Simultaneous combat operations require a number of expensive, expendable platforms in the opening hours of the conflict if our response is to be timely and induce shock. Awe is not achieved if the enemy is permitted to gain experience in being attacked; at best you may make them numb. Alternatively, reusable long-range survivable systems provide needed flexibility to alter the Deep Strike plan as it unfolds. The food chain of weapons systems ranges from the most valuable systems such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and stealth bombers, to less valuable, but useful, stealth fighter and long-range surface-to-surface high trajectory fires.
Discriminate fires are important due to the likelihood of people and structures being in close proximity to the desired target. It is not improbable that the national command center is located next door to a children's hospital.
Discriminate fires require precision in target cordinate identification and location. Precision does not mean "small warhead," although there is a beneficial impact as the right amount of explosive is placed on the target due the penalties imposed on the delivery vehicle required to carry the warhead long distances. All operations involving the use of firepower must also understand and evaluate the beneficial aspects of using non-destructive elements in conjunction with the attack to include all aspects of the so-called information warfare.
Enduring Realities and Rapid Dominance by General Fred Franks
Rapid Dominance, as we see it, is a markedly different concept for the use of force to gain national security ob jectives. At its core, Rapid Dominance blends unique capabilities of land, sea, air, space, and special operating forces. It is important to note the vital role of jointness in using forces from all elements and resisting the lure of gimmicks and cost-free options that may appear within the reach of high technology but are not.