The role of the US Air Force in fighting terrorism at home

Aerospace Power Journal, Spring, 2002 by Michael Champness

We have to think differently.... The enemy who appeared on September 11 seeks to avoid our strengths and constantly searches for our weaknesses. So America is required once again to change the way our military thinks and fights.

President Bush, 11 December 2001

IF ONE ACCEPTS the view of the president (and since he is our commander in chief, it would probably behoove us to do so), the question then becomes, How? Of the things we do now, what should we stop doing; and what are we not doing that we should? Air Force members were just as outraged by the events of 11 September 2001 as Americans everywhere. What should we do to help?

In the immediate response to the terrorist attack, the North American Air Defense Command and our air defense forces played an important role in protecting our skies from further attacks, and they continue to do so today. Our consequence-management capabilities, particularly in mobile emergency medicine, although not called upon due to the lack of injured victims, remain robust and ready. Over the long term, we will have to develop a "single integrated picture" of the range of airspace threats to the United States and develop a new readiness posture for our air defense forces.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, however, the preeminent role for our airpower and space power has been in taking the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. Coupled with special operations forces on the ground and Navy strike aircraft, our expeditionary forces have proven highly effective in destroying both the ability and the will of enemy forces to fight. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said he does not see the military success in Afghanistan being used as a "cookie mold," but it certainly seems clear that our long-held views on the advantages of effectively applied airpower are being vindicated emphatically.

But is this enough? I would not argue that "thinking differently" requires us to stop doing what we are already doing or are prepared to do to protect the homeland and battle terrorism at its source. I would argue that it does require us to look at our full range of capabilities and ask ourselves whether there are other ways we can contribute. Unfortunately, it sometimes seems that our expeditionary mind-set--particularly in times when our combat power has shown such impressive results--often blinds us to other opportunities.

No matter how much effort we put into snuffing out terrorist threats in foreign lands or protecting our borders from penetration by enemy weapons or personnel, it is inconceivable that we will be able to prevent every terrorist from entering our country. This challenge is compounded by lessons from the modus operandi of the 11 September attackers: they were not immediate terrorist threats when they first crossed into our country, and it took them two years to execute their evil plan after they arrived.

Because of this vulnerability at home, the president established the Office of Homeland Security. Its battlefield is our homeland, and its challenge is to protect against terrorist threats that emerge within our nation. It was not formed because of any shortcomings in the ability of our forces to protect our border from military attack or because the president and secretary of defense lacked confidence in our ability to root out terrorists overseas. It was formed because the terrorists had identified and exploited a glaring asymmetry in our defense: our free and open society allows them to penetrate our border and operate virtually unimpeded. Our current government structure is not well organized to intercept these terrorists before they strike or to deal effectively with the consequences of an attack. Leaving this vulnerability unrectified would be akin to playing hockey without a goalie.

A common refrain since 11 September has been that federal agencies need to share information about potential terrorist threats among themselves and with state and local law-enforcement officials. A great deal of work is also being pursued within the intelligence community to identify predictive attributes that can be used to focus the search for terrorists. Of course, the heightened sense of concern among the American people also provides a fresh source of potential intelligence. The challenge for the federal government lies in meshing the efforts of many different agencies and departments and coordinating with a myriad of state, local, and private organizations.

A critical component of this effort involves creating a seamless information web. Governor Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security, as well as the president and secretary of defense, will need secure, survivable, and dependable command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ([C.sup.2]ISR) to provide decision-quality information and instantaneous response. Does this sound familiar? Of course it does: in the Air Force, we call the system that provides this capability an air and space operations center (AOC). Maj Gen Robert Behler, commander of the Aerospace Command and Control and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center (A[C.sup.2]ISRC) at Air Combat Command, has written that "the crux of homeland security is identical to that of air and space command and control: putting the constant flow of time critical, decision quality information into the right hands. The U.S. Air Force has the command and control skills that can assist in the nation's most pressing challenge --combating terrorism at home." (1)